Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chris Gilbreath <br />Page 10 <br />Please propose locations for alluvial groundwater points <br />monitoring points required by the Division. <br />of compliance downgradient from the area affected by the activity proposed with PR-4. <br /> <br />ITEM 86. Five alluvial monitoring wells are proposed with PR-4. Their approximate locations are shown <br />in Figure 1 as pink symbols with green labels; the red polygon represents the approximate outline of the <br />proposed Collom pit. The completion information for these wells is provided in Exhibit 26, Item 1, and is <br />satisfactory. No upgradient monitoring wells are proposed, since, as is explained in Volume 15, Rule 4, <br />Page 14, shallow groundwater is not present upgradient of the proposed Collom pit. With this in mind, <br />impacts will be assessed relative to baseline data only. <br /> <br />The only proposed monitoring point on Little Collom Gulch (MLC-04-01) is located more than three <br />miles downgradient of the proposed pit. The time taken for affected water to travel between the proposed <br />pit and the MLC-04-01 may be roughly estimated using an equation for average linear velocity from <br />??ℎ <br />?=− <br />Fetter (reference 3 below): <br />??? <br />? <br />? <br /> <br />Assuming: <br /> <br /> Hydraulic conductivity, K = 3 ft/day (ref. table 2.04.7-40). <br /> <br /> Hydraulic gradient, dh/dl = -0.04 (equal to the average surface gradient estimated from <br />map 10B ((6540-7300)/18,500) <br />. <br /> <br /> Effective porosity, n = 25% <br />. <br />e <br /> <br />The average linear velocity, v, would be around 0.5 ft/day, at which rate the time taken for impacted <br />x <br />water to reach the monitoring point location would be over a hundred years. This estimate is only as <br />accurate as the estimated hydraulic conductivity, which is notoriously difficult to measure accurately; <br />nevertheless, the point is that a single, distant, monitoring point would yield very little information about <br />the impacts of the Collom pit on downgradient water quality. A sequence of monitoring points, much <br />closer to the disturbance would allow for the monitoring of any future contaminant plume, as well as the <br />extent of natural attenuation over time and distance. Furthermore, well tests at these new locations would <br />improve the accuracy and precision of the aquifer properties, and allow for an improved prediction of the <br />PHC. <br /> <br />Similar arguments apply to downgradient monitoring in the Collom Gulch and West Fork of Jubb Creek <br />drainages, although the flow paths are more complex and the estimated parameter values are less <br />accurate. <br /> <br />Please propose additional downgradient alluvial monitoring points in the Collom Gulch, Little <br />Collom Gulch and West Fork of Jubb Creek drainages closer to the affected area. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />