Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />LJ <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br />lJ <br /> <br /> <br />u <br /> <br />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 Flow. <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 occurted in both the surface water and alluvial water. Beginning in 1995, the levels of <br />all constituents in TR-1.5 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 />reFlec[ion of the co-mingling of alluvial water in the vicinit}' of TR- I.5 with creek water upstream of TR-B. <br />The independent nature of the observations and Vends 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 1999 for laboratory quality assurance purposes. The duplicate <br />samples were taken at surface water monitoring sites TR-A in April, TR-C 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-A showed 8 out of 15 laboratory parameters to be within the acceptable range (5%) of <br />the original values obtained. The duplicate sample value for calcium was 109% of the original value (26.2 mg/I-original vs. <br />28.6 mg/I-duplicate). The duplicate sample value for magnesium was 108% of the original value (10.2 mg/I-original vs. I 1 <br />mg/I-duplicate). The duplicate sample value for potassium was 113% of the original value (0.8 mg/I-original vs. 0.9 mg/I- <br />duplicate). The duplicate sample value for sodium was 110% of the original value (3.9 mg/I-original vs. 4.3 mg/I-duplicate). <br />The duplicate sample value for onhophosphate was 56% of the original value (0.009 mg/I-original vs. < 0.005 mg/I- <br />duplicate). Finally, the duplicate sample value for TDS was 92% of the original value (130 mg/I-original vs. 120 mg/I- <br />duplicate. <br />The August duplicate for TR-C showed 12 out of IS parameters to be within the acceptable range of the original <br />value obtained. The duplicate value for iron was 129% of the original value (0.07 mg/I-original vs. 0.09 mg/I-duplicate). The <br />duplicate value for potassium was 112% of the original value (1.7 mg/I-original vs. 1.9 mg/1-duplicate). Finally, the duplicate <br />value for ortho-phosphate was 200% of the original value (<0.005 mg/I-original vs. 0.01 mg/I-duplicate). <br />The October duplicate for TR-B showed 12 out of IS parameters to be within the acceptable range of the original <br />value obtained. The duplicate sample value for iron was 91% of the original value (O.I I mg/I-original vs. 0.10 mgJl- <br />duplica[e). The duplicate sample value for potassium was 106% of the original value (1.7 mg/I-original vs. I.8 mg/I- <br />47 <br />