Laserfiche WebLink
31 <br />• is a good example of the diffuse type. Table IV summarizes <br />the differences between the diffuse and conduit ground water <br />systems. <br />From 1974 through 1977, 7 representative mine drainages <br />from 4 different mining districts in the Front Range of <br />Colorado have been monitored on a seasonal basis. All of <br />these mines fit the diffuse flow system. Five other mine <br />drainages in the Front Range have been monitored on a semi- <br />regular basis, and the water chemistry in these drainages <br />changes little from sample to sample. It appears that most <br />mine effluents in Colorado are fed from diffuse aquifer sys- <br />tems (9, 11, 12). Indeed, if a conduit aquifer were en- <br />countered in__a mi e, the high discharge rate from a point <br />source would be obvious. <br />• <br />Now if the effluent follows the diffuse aquifer system, <br />then the chemistry of the water is highly predictable. <br />This makes possible the establishment of uniform monitoring <br />and treatment procedures. The chemistry of the effluent <br />from the Argo Tunnel has been studied extensively for a <br />long period of time. The variation in discharge has been <br />investigated by Wentz for the 1976-77 period (30). In <br />figure 5 are plotted the average discharge rate from the <br />tunnel for each month, the average discharge rate for nearby <br />Clear Creek and the amount of precipitation for each month <br />for the area. The tunnel discharge is the most constant of <br />these three. Figure 6 is a plot of the specific conductance <br />corrected to 25°C and concentrations of Fe, Mn, Na, and Cd <br />0