Laserfiche WebLink
~; <br />Jay James - ACZ, Inc. <br />-2- <br />February 10, 1992 <br />2. The highest level of dissolved solids and sulfate for the entire mine <br />site is station 306 on Bush Draw. Upon inspection, it is noted that <br />this site flows in response to snowmelt and isolated precipitation <br />events. However, to verify quality vs. flow characteristics, the <br />upstream site 314 was investigated. Why does site 306 show <br />relatively extended flow while site 314 shows practically none? <br />Inspection of historical data shows that this relationship has <br />existed for some time. Is site 314 in proper position to measure <br />flow? The review of the 1986 AHR review letter (9-5-87 to David <br />Gossett) raises this same issue. The only logical conclusion that <br />can be reached at the present time is that the surface water in Bush <br />Draw is being negatively impacted due to mining operations. Samples <br />show the TDS at an average level of 2345 mg/1, which is 9x the <br />domestic suspect level, and over 3x the crop suspect level for North <br />Park. No discharge from other sites could be identified to explain <br />either the flow issue or the quality concern. Please submit your <br />explanation of this phenomenon. <br />Ground Water Quantity and Quality <br />1. The water quality of well AO-2 possibly would assist explaining the <br />Bush Draw phenomenon. However, although three samples are required, <br />none were taken due to the well being dry or not having enough water <br />to sample. Since this well was established to monitor downstream <br />water quality, it is imperative that the required samples are <br />retrieved. Please submit a minor revision to complete this well to a <br />depth which will allow sampling on a regular basis. <br />2. There were no March or April field parameters for wells AP-1 and <br />AP-2, which could possibly be due to frozen conditions. However, <br />there are no May field parameters for AP-2 and no field parameters <br />during June for AP-2. Please explain this discrepancy. Also, the <br />monitoring plan requires the October sample to be tested for <br />fluoride, but this was not done. Is the plan in error or was the <br />sample missed? <br />Summary <br />Other than the Bush Draw issue, no impacts in quantity or quality are evident <br />at the present time. Please respond to these issues within the next 45 days. <br />Your diligence in adhering to your established water monitoring plan is <br />appreciated. <br />ARR <br />The review of the ARR for 1991 indicates no new disturbance and no reduction <br />in aerial extent of the disturbance. However, it is noted that backfilling in <br />