Laserfiche WebLink
General Discussion <br />Please explain the term "Ambig. SW" that appears in the columns for metals in the data tables <br />(Exhibit 2A). <br />Exhibit 2A does not contain data for Lower Taylor Creek (LTC) for 2010. Please explain why <br />there is no data for this example, as well as explain any other gaps in the data. <br />General Trends <br />Given the low W values for surface water data and groundwater data, it unclear why the trend <br />lines are shown on the graphs. Also, some of the trends (increasing or decreasing) in the data <br />tables on pages 2-3 to 2-7 are not reliable given the RZ values. Please focus the discussion on the <br />trends that are significant and relate to impacts on receiving waters. These trends include, but are <br />not limited to, increases in TDS in well MT-95-02 and increases in several parameters at the <br />Gossard well. <br />As noted above, more discussion is needed on the data. In a letter from Colowyo (Jennifer <br />Sekulski-Barton, July 15, 2010), Colowyo agreed to provide a written interpretation of the water <br />monitoring data in the 2010 AHR. This shall include any mining related impacts and a discussion <br />on whether the data confirm or refute the probable hydrologic impact section of the permit. <br />Spoil Spring Development <br />The discussion on spoil springs requires more detail, including, but not limited to, a discussion of <br />Gulch A. <br />ADDITIONAL ISSUES (not directly related to AMR) <br />The permit lists six surface water sites, but the AHR only reports on four. Perhaps CCC needs to <br />update the permit or DRMS has an outdated copy.