Laserfiche WebLink
r~ <br /> <br />(from 25 to 130 mg/1) and decreasing in sodium (283 to 83 <br />mg/1) . <br />Issues: The following items are Division concerns that need to be <br />addressed. <br />1. The mine discharge data and the corresponding graph need to be <br />in sync as far as representing the data from water year or <br />Georgian calendar year. Currently the graph x axis for the <br />sampling period rune according to water year while the data <br />provided run January to December. For ease of diagnosing the <br />data and compatibility of the data with the graph, please <br />revise the graph to reflect the January to December sampling <br />period. <br />Surface Water Monitorin <br />1. There needs to be more of an effort made in obtaining surface <br />flow samples from CCS-1, since this station serves ae a <br />baseline for mine water and surface flow off the refuse pile <br />downstream. The operator must make a commitment to be more <br />responsible in obtaining a sample from CCS-1. If <br />precipitation patterns show approximately 14 to 16 inches <br />annually, then surely a stream catch flow sample can be <br />obtained, particularly during a summer storm event. There has <br />been no collection of data at CCS-1 since 1988, while in 1987 <br />11 months of collecting samples was possible. <br />2. More operator diligence needs to be exercised concerning <br />sampling of CCS-2; surface water station downstream from both <br />the mine water discharge NPDES point GE-002 and the refuse <br />pile. Seven months of data sampling is missing; June through <br />December of 1992, while all months except June show data <br />supporting mine discharge pumping rates of 30-45 gpm. This is <br />a possible violation of permit commitments to monitor this <br />surface water sampling site monthly to determine the mine's <br />impact on the stream flow entering the Purgatoire River. <br />Same issue: lack of monthly data on two canyon wells, Cherry <br />and Lopez. Per commitment in permit these wells should be <br />monitored every month. To date, only one month's reading has <br />occurred since 1990 (August 1992) on Cherry Canyon, with three <br />month's total in Lopez canyon since 1990 (none in 1990, August <br />and September in 1991, August only in 1992). If indeed these <br />canyons are dry, then perhaps the permit commitment should be <br />changed to an annual sampling to reflect on-the-ground <br />conditions. Nearby wet Canyon seems to be, as it's name <br />reflects, amply sufficient for water samples to be collected <br />monthly. <br />MDGE-1, mine discharge monitoring surface water station has <br />not been calculated for any chemical parameters on the <br />permit's required short list (full suite). Flow, EC, pH, T, <br />dissolved O, Fe and TSS are the only parameters listed in the <br />2 <br />