Laserfiche WebLink
<br />drainageways. Design information should be ultimately <br />submitted for each disturbed drainage showing estimated <br />discharge, flow volumes, channel specifics including lining, <br />shape, etc.. Numerous locations within the proposed disturbed <br />area of the Yoast permit are interrupting major ephemeral <br />drainages, The success of the reclamation will ultimately <br />depend on the performance of these drainage channels within <br />the large framework of the post-mining topography. <br />5. Spring monitoring, proposed monitoring times, etc. <br />I spoke with Dennis Jones of SCC by phone on June 22, 1995. <br />He informed me that they almost always complete their required <br />May/June groundwater sampling in May of each year. It is his <br />understanding that June was listed for those rare occasions of <br />weather or access and he understood our desire for a semi- <br />annual sample to show seasonal variations if they exist. I am <br />satisfied that we can drop this issue for now but should re- <br />visit the issue should SCC begin to collect samples on a <br />regular basis throughout the month of June. He also informed <br />me that the springs that they had proposed not to monitor were <br />for the most part 'wet spots' and after checking the baseline <br />data collected I agree. If, however, springs of significance <br />in the field are identified, they should be included <br />immediately in the monitoring program. This includes spoil <br />springs as well as springs/ponds in the undisturbed, adjacent <br />area. <br />6. Flow and level in Tables 15-4 and 15-5 <br />I spoke to Dennis Jones about this and he explained why they <br />have done it this way. I am satisfied that the way they <br />currently have presented this information is fine. <br />7. Spoil spring discharge estimates per disturbed acre. <br />SCC provided the Division with their estimate of spoil spring <br />discharge per disturbed acre for the Yoast mine via a phone <br />conversation on June 22, 1995. As you can see from the table <br />below, their value falls within an acceptable range based on <br />past evaluation done by the Division. <br />CHIA estimate (low flow) .0001594 <br />DMG Yoast estimate .0002877 <br />SCC Yoast estimate .0005412 <br />Chia estimate (High flow) .0029850 <br />Unless their are substantial errors in their calculations, I <br />believe that the information within the PHC with regard to salt <br />loading is reasonable and should be accepted. Review of monitoring <br />data and comparison against this prediction will indicate if any <br />changes or modifications to the PHC are necessary over time. <br />If you have any further questions, let me know. <br />