Laserfiche WebLink
J. J. Dudash - 2 - September 22, 2004 <br />Upstream North Thompson Creek <br />Date TSS Iron Date TSS Iron <br />05/16/95 350 1.57 09/30/95 <10 0.12 <br />05/17/96 180 0.16 09/23/96 <10 0.17 <br />05/30/97 95 0.15 09/08/97 <10 0.29 <br />05/31 /98 265 0.91 09/21 /98 220 0.80 <br />05/19/99 315 0.78 09/15/99 35 0.62 <br />05/11/00 180 0.84 09/04/00 40 0.58 <br />05/12/01 285 0.77 12/03/01 20 0.48 <br />05/08/02 40 0.91 09/08/02 <10 0.1 <br />06/27/03 <10 0.11 10/24/03 <10 0.12 <br />4. _ _ _ Bear's field technician has been asked.to obtain samples from AAi and AA3 during higher <br />flow periods. Since it is late in the year and the flow in the river is low, it is unlikely a <br />sample from either well will be retrieved for the 2004 ARH. <br />5. The elevation of AA1 is not available. The new well was not surveyed. <br />6. Enclosed is revised page 8 of the AHR with the corrected TDS value for alluvial well AAi. <br />The calculated TDS value for the river increased from 136 to 139 mg/I. I do not believe <br />laboratory analysis necessary indicates the impact the mine has on the river since no <br />baseline data are available at the upstream or downstream monitoring locations. The <br />following table presents the TDS values for the river during December for the period 1997 <br />through 2003. As you can see, typically there is little difference between the upstream and <br />downstream TDS values. <br />North Fork of the Gunnison River <br />December Data -TDS (mg /I) <br />Date U stream Downstream Difference <br />1997 120 130 10 <br />1998 140 150 10 <br />1999 120 130 10 <br />2000 90 130 40 <br />2001 140 150 10 <br />2002 110 130 20 <br />2003 110 160 50 <br />Please call if you have any questions. <br />Sincerely, <br />fC% „`.' <br />J. E. Stover, P.E. <br />Consulting Engineer <br />