Laserfiche WebLink
V. SURFACE WATER -GROUND WATER INTERACTIONS <br />The interrelationship in concentrations of chemical parameters between the surface waters and alluvial waters at the <br />Edna Mine can only be suggested in very general terms. The primary reasons for this are the relative location of a given well <br />to the creek, the source from which an alluvial well's water originates and the dynamics of alluvial flow. <br />Prior to 1995, a general trend evident in TDS and the major ions was that as one progressed downstream along the <br />mine an increase in these parameters occurred in both the surface water and alluvial water. Beginning in 1995, the levels of <br />all constituents in TR-1.5 increased dramatically. While the influence of this increase in upstream alluvial water is not clearly <br />expressed in either surface or alluvial water downstream for the majority of the year, the elevated concentrations of surface <br />water constituents observed in the early portion of the year are more pronounced than previously. This is probably a <br />reflection of the co-mingling of alluvial water in the vicinity of TR-] .5 with creek water upstream of TR-B. <br />The independent nature of the observations and trends occurring within the creek water and alluvial water suggests <br />[he two water bodies have limited influence upon each other. The lack of influence is probably due to the slow exchange rate <br />of water between the two bodies during most of the year. <br />VI. QUALITY ASSURANCE <br />Three duplicate samples were collected during 2004 for laboratory quality assurance purposes. The duplicate <br />samples were taken at surface water monitoring sites TR-C in April, TR-C in July, and TR-$ in October. Results of the <br />duplicate analyses were favorable For most of the parameters tested. <br />The April duplicate for TR-C showed 14 out of 15 laboratory parameters to be within the acceptable range (5%) of <br />the original values obtained. The duplicate sample value for nitrite was 92% of the original value (0.12 mg/I-original vs. 0.1 I <br />mg/I-duplicate). <br />The July duplicate for TR-C showed 6 out of I S parameters to be within the acceptable range of the original value <br />obtained. The duplicate value for aluminum was 43% of the original value (0.07 mg/1-original vs. 0.03 mg/I-duplicate). The <br />duplicate sample value for calcium was 113% of [he original value (48.5 mg/1-original vs. 54.6 mg/I-duplicate). The duplicate <br />sample value for iron was 89% of the original value (0.19 mg/1-original vs. O.17 mg/I-duplicate). The duplicate sample value <br />for magnesium was 110% of the original value (25.3 mg/1-original vs. 27.8 mg/I-duplicate). The duplicate sample value for <br />manganese was 79% of the original value (0.028 mgfl-original vs. 0.022 mg/1-duplicate). The duplicate sample value for <br />potassium was 113% of the original value (1.6 mg/1-original vs. 1.8 mg/I-duplicate). The duplicate sample value for sodium <br />was ] 06% of the original value (6.9 mg/1-original vs. 7.3 mg/I-duplicate). The duplicate sample value for chloride was 50% <br />of the original value (2 mg/1-original vs. I mg/1-duplicate). The duplicate sample value for total suspended solids was 133% <br />of the original value (6 mg/I-original vs. 8 mg/I-duplicate). <br />The October duplicate for TR-$ showed 13 out of 15 parameters to be within [he acceptable range of the original <br />value obtained. The duplicate sample value for iron was 77% of the original value (0.3 mg/1-original vs. 0.23 mg/1-duplicate). <br />The duplicate sample value for manganese was 94% of [he original value (0.016 mg/I-original vs. 0.0 ] 7 mg/I-duplicate). <br />46 <br />