REP52170 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Terrell Johnson 4 October 18, 1985 minor elevated TDS and sulfate levels (TDS 500-800 mg/1) but without a defined trend. The water quality of Foidel Creek gets poorer downgradient from the CYCC Mines. Sulfates and TDS are the primary constituents degraded. This increased salt loading was predicted in the application. The undisturbed tributary of Foidel Creek as well as the upstream (undisturbed) sample site on the south branch of Foidel Creek both exhibit very good quality. However, the quality of the creek gets worse below Eckman Park and continues to a point below the Mine No. 1 area. TDS Surface Water Quality-Foidel Creek Upstream S. Foidel Site 33, 8508G Undisturbed Foidel Branch Site 14, 8501G Site #39, 8501E Below Pond A (Eckman Park) X2030 Pond D Outlet, 8508H, P•iine #1 Spoils and TCC 8300 Site 8, 8507A, Foidel Cr. below the mine Sulfate EC(Umhos) (mq/1) 570 97 880 218 2350 1470 3960 2230 2710 1540 The degradation of water quality appears to be due to runoff from the mined areas (which was predicted by CYCC) as well as spoils discharge such as from springs and direct alluvial recharge (which was not predicted by CYCC). A lack of monitoring by CYCC makes it unknown how much spoils discharge is occurring as well as what the trend is in spoil water quality. General Concerns The Division's inspections of July 30, 31; August 1, 2; and September 19, 1985 as well as subsequent reviews of hydrologic sample results. and CYCC's application raised several concerns. These concerns pertain to sampling methodology, monitoring site locations, CYCC's predictions of probable hydrologic consequences, and CHIS/material damage issues. The concerns are summarized as follows: USGS Ca nco-~e~l W~ Te.,4».y uer d Oak1 IPe l,wb,~~~y ;s ~i'~ re5 a.~ (v Jn,•;but Pa~¢roe~'r A. The operator's sampling methodology for a few procedures does not compare with standards and guidelines in use by the Colorado Department of Health, EPA, or USGS. Major problems were noted with sampling stagnant unbailed wells, reusing filter paper, and not keeping samples on ice (see MLRD inspection report of September 19, 1985 for all problems noted). This raises questions on whether the data collected by CYCC is reliable and in compliance with Rule 4.05.13. CYCC needs to describe the details of how monitoring and sampling is conducted and justify (using references, reports, guidelines, etc.) that the procedures in use are reliable, acceptable methods in use by the scientific community. ;,,~; I! ~„a /4 of t.. ~oG+'{dnfa ~a//ac ~:oh fec ~n ;/qq QS' r• 74-r h c~oc..+....~ fS.vf ~~fviU4llty~Co///PG/ / o%/~, /'f I14~o1 Wi« S+ so .w.e Cl+4nfi'¢J in ~nPA wJ~(r