Laserfiche WebLink
V. SURFACE WATER -GROUND WATER INTERACTIONS <br />The interrelationship in concentrations of chemical parameters between the surface waters and alluvial waters a[ [he <br />Edna Mine can only be suggested in very general terms. The primary reasons for [his 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-I.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 ofatluvial water in the vicinity of TR-1.5 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 />the 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 2003 for laboratory quality assurance purposes. The duplicate <br />samples were taken at surface water monitoring sites TR-D in April, TR-D in August, and TR-$ in October. Results of the <br />duplicate analyses were favorable for most of the parameters tested. <br />The April duplicate for TR-D showed 10 out of 15 laboratory parameters to be within the acceptable range (5%) of <br />the original values obtained. The duplicate sample value for calcium was 106% of the original value (92.0 mg/1-original vs. <br />97.2 mg/I-duplicate). The duplicate sample value for iron was 129% of the original value (0.07 mg/1-original vs. 0.09 mg/I- <br />duplicate). The duplicate sample for magnesium was 110% of the original value (60.5 mg/1-original vs. 66.7 mg/I-duplicate). <br />The duplicate sample value for manganese was 114% of the original value (0.081 mg/1-original vs. 0.092 mg/I-duplicate). The <br />duplicate sample value for potassium was 107% of the original value (2.8 mg/1-original vs. 3.0 mg/I-duplicate). <br />The August duplicate for TR-D showed 12 out of 15 parameters ro be within [he acceptable range of the original <br />value obtained. The duplicate value for bicarbonate was 132% of [he original value (167 mg/I-original vs. 221 mg/1- <br />duplicate), The duplicate sample value for ortho-phosphate was 150% of the original value (0.02 mg/I-original vs. 0.03 mg/1- <br />duplica[e). <br />The October duplicate for TR-B showed 11 out of 15 parameters to be within the acceptable range of [he original <br />value obtained. The duplicate sample value for aluminum was 75% of the original value (0.04 mg/1-original vs. 0.03 mg/1- <br />duplicate). The duplicate sample value for iron was 112% of the original value (0.17 mg/1-original vs. 0.19 mg/1-duplicate), <br />The duplicate sample value for manganese was 133% of the original value (0.012 mg/I-original vs. 0.016 mg/I-duplicate). The <br />duplicate sample value for potassium was 125% of the original value (1.2 mg/1-original vs. 1.5 mg/I-duplicate). <br />47 <br />