Laserfiche WebLink
A?gus? 14, 209 Page ? <br />of the surface water of East Salt Creek and no detrimental impact upon the groundwater of the <br />East Salt Creek ?a11ey? This appears to be consistent w1th the data reported in the ?o?S AHR, <br />The Division agrees that the results from surface water samples collected from East Salt Creek <br />above and below the mine sites are generally the same for all parameters, From the monitoring <br />data provided there also does riot appeax to be any detectable impact to the East Salt Creek <br />alluvium. However, there are higher conductlvlty levels reported for w-9 located immediately <br />below McClave Canyo?a Mine. w?9 is a new well drilled and completed in September ?Oa7 <br />and the baseline inforn7ation has not yet been reported far this well for co?nparisan purposes with <br />current data. The lncreascd canductlvrty rn viclnlty of Gw-9 appears to be a localized condition. <br />The PHC den7onstrates that avexall there is na detrimental impact upon the groundwater of the <br />East Salt Creek ?a11ey. <br />The Division has the following comments regarding the ??a$ AHR submitted far McClave and <br />Munger Canyon Mines. <br />l . There was no discussion in the AHR regardi?.g con7pliar?ce with CDP S effluent <br />1i?nitations from discharges to surface water from the mine water discharge outfall or the <br />sediment pond at McClave Canyon Mine. This information 1s ?naportant 1n assessing <br />impacts to East Salt Creek. Please add a brief discussion regarding compliance with <br />CDPS permit requirements and whether or not there were any exceedar?ces of effluent <br />limits for the reported mine water discharge described an page 4 and the sediment pond <br />discharge described on page S? <br />?. Reviewing the Conductivity and TDS data it is clear that there is na increase in either <br />parameter its surface water sa177ples collected fro?x? below t17e Mine ?Sw?S} when <br />compared to thaw from above the mine ?Sw-1 }. In both cases the Conductivity and TDS <br />values are higher above the mine througl7aut the water yeaz. This 1s a goad indicator that <br />the mine is having a negligible impact with regard to salinity on East Salt Creek, <br />However, the last sentence on page ? is not consistent with this and states that the mine <br />water discharge supplen7ented and slightly degraded the water quality in East Salt Creek <br />during the year, It appears from the data presented that the degradation is a localized <br />effect but overall there is na measurable impact when comparing data from shave and <br />below the mines. Far consistency and clarification, the D1vrs?on believes this should be <br />further explained, if appropriate, add a statement to the second to last paragraph on page <br />4 indicating that the data an average show higher levels of bath Conductivity and TDS at <br />-1 above the mine then at Sw-8 below the mine. Also it may be appropriate to <br />modify the last sentence oil page 4 to indicate that East Salt Creek may be slightly <br />degraded i?a close praxirriity to the mine water discharge outfall but overall the effects on <br />salinity in East Salt Crecy appear to be minimal. <br />3. with reference to the last paragraph on page 4, rt appears that the TDS value obtained <br />from a sample of mine inflow is also being used for the average TDS value in water <br />discharged to East Salt Creek, Table presents an analysis of Underground ample?ine