Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 3 <br />5. Well GW-S22 has increased in water level approximately 2 feet <br />since installation according to well hydrographs. It is <br />stated in the text that the well is essentially dry, having <br />only 0.4 feet of water to 1t. One or the other appears to be <br />in error. <br />B. Quality <br />1. It 1s stated that there are no trends in declining water <br />quality. While this statement is true, the spoils wells <br />exhibited an increase in pH and total dissolved solids 1n <br />1983. These parameters should be watched during 1984 to see <br />if a trend is developing. <br />II. Surface Water <br />A. Quantity <br />1. There 1s no mention of the springs that are located on the <br />map. Have any measurements of quantity or quality ever been <br />taken? Most of the springs will not be affected by mining, <br />however, Spring #5 appears to be downgradlent of mining. <br />B. Quality <br />1. Same comment as above. <br />In addition to all these comments, this would be a good time to get Seneca <br />thinking about their next term of permit and what additional monitoring will <br />6e needed. In future mining, the emphasis will shift to the Fish Creek <br />drainage and this drainage is of some concern because of the Intensity of <br />mining within it. <br />/cd <br />Doc. 0207E <br />