REP25536 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- There is no upper Taylor Creek location that is reported, although there is a point that Colowyo shows as being a monitoring location. I was thinking that there should be a point even farther upstream than this point on Taylor Creek, like in the Section 17 azea, due to current West Pit mining. - Should there be any surface water monitoring points (that are reported) along Wilson Creek (on the west side of the mine)? Wilson Creek flows right by the Gossazd Loadout and the ponds at the ladout discharge to Wilson Creek. - Should there be any monitoring at the confluence of Good Spring and Wilson Creek (bo possibly determine any impacts on Milk Creek)? - There do not appear to be any upgradient ground water monitoring locations for the tl.~ree reported wells. Two of the wells aze shallow alluvial wells along Good Spring Creek and the third is a shallow alluvial well at the Gossazd Loadout (basically on Wilson Creek). - There are no deep monitoring wells at any location at the Colowyo Mine. Is this appropriate for the site? - Does all of the water from the Section 16 Pit azea (including the mining from Section 15) flow to the north and east where any impacts aze detected or does the water flow to a location above NUGSC and A-6? The reason I ask this is because levels of the constituents in these waters (including conductivity, TDS, SO42+, Na', etc.) are all trending upward. - Should we require laboratory pH, as this tends to be less accurate than field pH due Ito potential bottle contamination and a very short holding time? Similarly, should we require laboratory conductivity? Although the holding time is much longer, results, in general, are not much more accurate. The problem is that by doing two methods that give greater variability can cause problems in determining trends and/or problems. - Is the LGSC monitoring point in the correct location (monitoring downstream of Good Spring Creek)? There appear to be mining related activities down stream form this location. There are also a fecv items that I would like to see included in the AHR in the future. First, I would like to see creek flow and groundwater elevation data on the water chemistry graphs to better see seasonal and flow related trends. Second, I would like to see a low level TSSI chart (say, up to 100 mg/L TSS) since most of the data is in this range. Outliers could be noted at the appropriate location on the chart. Third, I would like to see the graphs for pH with a smaller range (say 6-10 SU vs. 1-10) for more detail. This concludes my observations and questions regarding the 2005 Colowyo AHR.