My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2025-04-11_REVISION - M1988112 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1988112
>
2025-04-11_REVISION - M1988112 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/14/2025 8:52:02 AM
Creation date
4/14/2025 8:31:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/11/2025
Doc Name Note
Appendix D Thru Attachment E Binder 2 of 2
Doc Name
Request For Amendment To Permit
From
Battle Mountain Resources, Inc.
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM4
Email Name
LJW
THM
EL1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
200
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Newmont Corporation <br /> July 23, 2020 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 2.4 Model Calibration <br /> The three conceptual models simulating current conditions were calibrated using non-linear <br /> regression. Current conditions include BF5 pumping 189.8 gpm in the West Pit along with two <br /> down-gradient alluvial wells M32 and M33 pumping a total of 15 gpm. Calibration was validated <br /> by simulating groundwater conditions without pumping well BF5 in each calibrated conceptual <br /> model. The simulated pre-pumping water levels were a reasonable match to observed pre-pumping <br /> water levels which support the calibration results of each conceptual model. <br /> 2.5 Multi-Model Analysis <br /> A multi-model analysis was conducted to compare the three conceptual models. The Kashyap <br /> Information Criteria (KIC) was used to rank models and assign a probability that a model <br /> represents the true, but unknown, groundwater flow system. Models that include pre- and current <br /> pumping conditions were evaluated. KIC model probabilities for the three models are 45%for the <br /> PITWALL model, 28% for the UPFLOW model, and 27% for the BASE model. Given this <br /> probability distribution between the models, each model can be considered reliable for modeling <br /> simulations results, thus providing a range of possible outcomes. <br /> 3.0 SIMULATION RESULTS <br /> Current groundwater flow conditions and remediation scenarios developed by HYS were <br /> simulated in the updated BASE, PITWALL, and UPFLOW models, as described below. The U.S. <br /> Geological software program ZONEBUDGET was then used to calculate a mass balance of flow <br /> into and out of the West Pit from different zones in the model. Zones defined correspond to <br /> hydraulic conductivity zones, with one additional zone added for the North Pit area so that the <br /> North Pit area contribution of groundwater flow into the West Pit can be calculated (Figure 1). <br /> West Pit area mass balance groundwater budgets for each conceptual model, including current <br /> conditions and remedial simulations, are listed in Table 1. <br /> These remediation scenarios include: <br /> • an alluvial well field; <br /> • an interceptor trench; <br /> • a partial cutoff wall; <br /> • a full cutoff wall; <br /> • a partial cutoff wall with pumping wells M32, M33 and BF5; and <br /> • a full cutoff wall with pumping wells M32, M33 and BF5. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.