Laserfiche WebLink
F. In the baseline water quality data provided on graph 4-6 <br />in the annual hydrologic report, Mercury is noted as (Hs) and <br />is as being measured in (ug/L). It appears that the baseline <br />data has a mistake in it because the symbol for Mercury is <br />Hg. It also appears the Mercury is currently being measured <br />in a different set of units that it was in its baseline data. <br />The baseline value for Mercury at Springs 3 and 4 ranges from <br /><.3 to .5. In the current 1995 data the value is .001. <br />Apparently the company switched the units from ug/L to mg/L. <br />G. At Spring No. 3, the total iron seems to have taken a big <br />drop in concentration, from 25 mg/L to .225 mg/L. Twenty - <br />five milligrams per liter seems to be a high value for total <br />iron, as compared to the 1995 data presented in the AHR. <br />H. On Figure 25 of the AHR, Spring No. 4 shows a sharp <br />increase in Nitrate/Nitrites in the first quarter of 1994 as <br />compared to the succeeding quarters. After the first quarter <br />of 1994 the value returns to a lower amount for the remainder <br />of 1995. <br />J. On Figure 34, Well 17B is shown to have has a consistent <br />well depth since the third quarter of 1982. <br />K. Well 11B appears to be a new well added by Oakridge <br />Energy, Inc. There is no record of any baseline water quality <br />data for this well, nor is there record of this well in the <br />revised water monitoring plan. The well is, however, <br />presented in the 1995 AHR with only the second quarter of <br />1995's data. <br />This concludes Kirstin's report but, as stated earlier, several <br />concerns have been raised. The rules state that hydrologic <br />monitoring will be conducted according to the approved plan <br />presented in the permit, however, this is not being accomplished. <br />Additionally, no reason is given for the missed sampling and <br />apparently, no attempt is made to resample at a later date. <br />The reason for the monitoring is to detect changes in the <br />hydrologic balance due to mining as well as to protect the mining <br />company from false claims. This cannot be done unless the <br />monitoring plan is followed and reported as the plan states. <br />As you know, the approved permit is a legally binding document and <br />not abiding by it can result in enforcement actions. Please take <br />the time necessary to correct the deficiencies noted in this report <br />and the midterm review and then accomplish the monitoring and <br />reporting as required. <br />I will be coming down to the Durango area during the week of 13 <br />January, 1997, to meet with you, Mike Savage, and Goff Engineering <br />to discuss Technical Revisions 3 and 6, as well as this report and <br />other issues as necessary. <br />