Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />V. SURFACE WATER -GROUND WATER INTERACTIONS <br />' The interrelationship in concentrations of chemical parameters between the surface waters and alluvial waters at the <br />Edna Mine can only be suggested in very general terms. The primary reasons for this 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 Clow. <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 of alluvial water in the vicinity of TR- I.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 2000 for laboratory quality assurance purposes. The duplicate <br />samples were taken at surface water monitoring sites TR-C in April, TR-B in August, and TR-C in October. Results of the <br />' duplicate analyses were favorable for most of the parameters tested. <br />The April duplicate for TR-C showed 12 out of IS laboratory parameters to be within the acceptable range (5%) of <br />the original values' obtained. The duplicate sample value For iron was 86% of the original value (0.07 mg/I-original vs. 0.06 <br />' mg/I-duplicate). The duplicate sample value for chloride was 150% of the original value (2 mg/I-original vs. 3 mg/I- <br />duplicate). The duplicate sample value for orthophosphate was 67% of the original value (0.009 mg/I-original vs. 0.006 <br />' ntg/I-duplicate). <br />The August duplicate for TR-B showed 12 out of IS parameters to be within the acceptable range of the original <br />' value obtained. The duplicate value for iron was 78% of the original value (0.09 mg/I-original vs. 0.07 mg/I-duplicate). The <br />duplicate value for TDS was 93% of the original value (410 mg/I-original vs. 380 mg/I-duplicate). Finally, the duplicate <br />' value for TSS was 120% of the original value (< Smg/I-original vs. 6 mg/I-duplicate). <br />The October duplicate for TR-C showed I I oul of IS parameters to be within the acceptable range of the original <br />value obtained. The duplicate sample value for iron was 150% of the original value (0.18 mg/I-original vs. 0.27 mg/I- <br />' duplicate). The duplicate sample value for manganese was 123% of the original value (0.022 mg/I-original vs. 0.027 mg/I- <br />duplicate). The duplicate sample value for orthophosphate was 11-0% of the original value (0.007 mg/I-original vs. 0.008 <br />' mg/I-duplicate). Finally, the duplicate sample value for sulfate was 94% of the original value (180 mg/I-original vs. 0.170 <br />mg/I-duplicate). <br />' -17 <br />