Laserfiche WebLink
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 [he relative location of a given well <br />to [he creek, the source from which an alluvia] well's water originates and [he dynamics of alluvial flow. <br />Prior to 1995, a general [rend evident in TDS and the major ions was [ha[ 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-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 />reflection of the co-mingling of alluvial water in the vicinity of TR-1.5 with creek water upstream of TR-B. <br />The independent nature of the observations and trends occurring within [he creek water and alluvial water suggests <br />[he 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 2002 for laboratory quality assurance purposes. The duplicate <br />samples were taken at surface water monitoring sites TR-A in April, TR-D in August, and TR-D 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 [he acceptable range (5%) of <br />the original values obtained. The duplicate sample value for aluminum was 60% of the original value (0.05 mg/I-original vs. <br />0.03 mg/1-duplicate). The duplicate sample value for iron was 92% of the original value (0.13 mg/1-original vs. 0.12 mg/I- <br />duplicate). The duplicate sample value for manganese was 88% of [he original value (0.008 mg/I-original vs. 0.007 mg/1- <br />duplicate). The duplicate sample value for potassium was 110% of the original value (1.0 mg/I-original vs. 1.1 mg/I- <br />duplicate). The duplicate sample value for sodium was 109% of the original value (3.3 mg/1-original vs. 3.6 mg/I-duplicate). <br />The duplicate sample value for TDS was 109% of the original value (110 mg/1-original vs. 120 mg/1-duplicate). The duplicate <br />sample value for TSS was 120% of the original value {5 mg/1-original vs. 6 mg/1-duplicate). <br />The August duplicate for TR-D showed 10 out of IS parameters to be within the acceptable range of the original <br />value obtained. The duplicate value for iron was 133% of the original value (0.03 mg/I-original vs. 0.04 mg/1-duplicate). The <br />duplicate value for manganese was 115% of the original value (0.013 mg/1-original vs. 0.015 mg/I-duplicate). The duplicate <br />sample value for potassium was 94% of the original value (3.3 mg/1-original vs. 3.1 mg/I-duplicate). The duplicate sample <br />value for ortho-phosphate was ! ] 5% of the original value (0.013 mg/I-original vs. 0.015 mg/I-duplicate). The duplicate <br />sample value for TSS was 75% of the original value (6.0 mg/I-original vs. 8.0 mg/1-duplicate). <br />The October duplicate for TR-D showed 14 out of I S parameters to be within the acceptable range of the original <br />value obtained. The duplicate sample value for TSS was 83% of the original value (6.0 mg/1-original vs. 5.0 mg/1-duplicate). <br />47 <br />