Laserfiche WebLink
<br />water from this area in seeps and springs seems to be contained in <br />the surface sediment ponds and structures. <br />3. P&M did mention and invalidate their EC recordings in the <br />report narrative and graphs for both ground and surface waters, as <br />requested. <br />4. Explanation of the EC/TDS formula used historically was <br />included in the AHR report as requested. <br />5. It appears the beaver situation for surface water monitoring <br />is cleared up. Steve Ananola showed me two new stream flow <br />stations constructed on Trout Creek, in the vicinity of TR-4; <br />ground water well. Beavers have not been seen this spring, either <br />engaging in dam construction or just hanging out. <br />6. All ground water wells have good structural integrity and are <br />capped and sealed. <br />7. Although Mn levels have increased at WR-1, dissolved iron <br />\~ ~( ~ content has not, where this well for three quarters of the year <br />`f~"`\ shows the lowest Fe levels of all ground water wells for the years <br />1989, 1990 and 1991. If iron levels were to match Mn rise, then <br />there would be a d~matic increase in AMD - this is another <br />parameter to watch closely. <br />8. Ground water parameters: Ca, Na, Mg, HCO3 and Soo all fall <br />within baseline ranges. I have not checkedI have not checked these~arameters <br />I II~ a ulnsr. Ln ~:u~ male iai aama a sus ec:c c: 1 erla llsc n weveL . <br />lnMq,t 1 S `1 h~- C ~V Wtii• rti.1 5 V 5~ 1 S t !'W $.~PXI. I , <br />9. Ground water levels ha a rem fined constant, so no dewatering <br />of aquifers due to mining activities is occurring. <br />10. Concerning surface waters, the AHR graphs from page 8 to 10 <br />have been delineated with a yellow marker line, which indicates <br />that this is the time interval of suspect data, also the highest <br />values were obtained during this interval. Since Dec 1991 the <br />levels have for the most part, decreased on all parameters. Highest <br />values were on TR-D, the furthermost monitoring point downstream, <br />indicating that the permit supposition of "dilution effect by Trout <br />Creek waters", may not be occurring as much as originally assumed. <br />These years, too, of course were drought years, where the waters <br />were minimal for dilution effect to have taken place. <br />11. Peak in July and August of TDS has been explained by <br />agricultural activities in the vicinity, as promised. The effect <br />of "logging activities" has been removed as requested by DMG 2/93 <br />in meeting with P & M. <br />Well, thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat's all fooooo00oooolkss! As David <br />Letterman says, "I'm outa here!" (But available for consultation <br />at a nominal fee....) <br />