Laserfiche WebLink
Total 1040 1170 1490 935 1158.8 <br />Dissolved <br />solids (mg/L) <br />Temperature 12 14 13 20 14.75 <br />(Deg. C) <br />Zinc (Zn) .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 <br />(mg/L) <br />VI. Analysis of Current Water Quality Impacts and Monitoring <br />Compliance. <br />A. The lack of adequate baseline information made the task of <br />assessing the effects of mining on the hydrologic balance <br />difficult. The only two wells that have pre-1995 baseline <br />data were 17B and 82-4. Well 82-4 has only baseline pH, <br />temperature, EC, and water level data, is apparently no <br />longer being monitored. This makes well 17B the only well <br />with both pre-1995 baseline data and current (1995) data. <br />B. In Section 4, page 14, of the permit, it is stated that <br />wells 17B, 82-4, and 82-1 have been established for baseline <br />water quality data and that they are planned to be long term <br />wells. Baseline data for Well 82-1 could not be found, <br />however, nor could any indication that it is being currently <br />monitored. <br />C. In section 4, page 14, of the permit, it is stated that <br />oakridge will sample and analyze wells 82-4, 17B, and 82-1 for <br />a full suite list quarterly for one year and on a semi-annual <br />basis thereafter to supplement the existing baseline data. A <br />specific description of what the "full suite list" is supposed <br />to be for ground water and surface water sample analysis, <br />however, was not found in the permit nor in the annual <br />hydrologic report. For this reason it was difficult to check <br />the company's compliance its water quality analysis program. <br />D. Reference in the permit in section four continues to <br />state that certain wells will be monitored to supplement the <br />existing baseline water quality data. The date that this <br />section of the permit was updated is not included, therefore, <br />it is difficult to tell when this new baseline water quality <br />data is supposed to supplement the old. <br />E. Carbon Junction Canyon and Spring No. 1 are included in <br />the baseline data provided in section four of the annual <br />hydrologic report submitted by the Carbon Junction. No <br />reference to these two monitoring stations is mentioned ever <br />again. No tables providing water quality data for 1994/95 is <br />provided for the two either. <br />