INSPEC44602 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

readings that can not be related to historical data or to a trend in the data, and which will need more sampling results until conclusions can be drawn. Examples are manganese in well GE-1, lead in well J-1, sulfate in wells GMP-1, J-1 and P-8 and TDS in wells GF-7, GC-1, GP-7, GC-2 and GC-3. Fourth, there are high readings that appear to be related to a recent or long term trend in the data. Manganese in well GF-11, sulfate in wells GC-3 and GE-1 and TDS in well P-8 are examples. It will remain to be seen whether these trends are reversed as mining ceases in those local azeas. There were also cases where data may be showing a declining trend, such as TDS in spoil well GC-11 and sulfate in spoil wells GD-3 and GF-7. There has been a varied natural rechazge rate in the last few years at the mine site. Precipitation in 1994 was well below the average while, for 1995, it was well above the average. 1996 showed an above average year for precipitation, but below that of the previous yeaz. Varying rechazge rates were reflected in varying water level changes in the wells, with some wells showing a lag between the time of precipitation and the water elevation change. In those wells where mining moved away from the well location, water levels rose. The 1996 Annual Report has a more complete listing of springs and seeps, and the water monitoring results obtained from them, than did previous annual reports. This was due to a request stemming from the 1996 OSM Special Focus Inspection. For 1996, only two springs were flowing greater than 5 gpm, East Pyeatt and Johnson. The TDS and specific conductance for the Johnson spring are very high, although similar to the readings at the neazby spoil well GF-7.The annual report states that the TDS in well GF-7 appears to be leveling off or declining, and that the Johnson spring may follow suit. Concerning the updated spring information, provided on page 4-248a in Section 8 of the 1996 Annual Report, the Division has two comments. 13. On proposed revised page 4-248a, in the proposed Table of Contents for Appendix Q and in the proposed cover page for Section XXIX of Appendix Q, all found in Section 8 of the 1996 Annual Report, reference is made to Appendix Q, Section XXIX. However, this section contains the stock pond information that was a result of Technical Revision No. 73. Please rectify this conflict. 14. The information provided in the permit application and in the spring and seep proposed revised pages does not seem to directly address whether the Coyote spring and the West Buzzard spring existed prior to mining. It is important to document the premine status of these springs to order to allow a proper impact analysis relative to these springs. Please provide any available data for these springs.. 4