Laserfiche WebLink
Surf ace'Vet er 1(oh'itoYi rtu'~Plan .. • <br />~_ Introduction. Determinations of the probable hydrologic consequences (PHC) of mining have <br />been made'by including detailed analyses of historical surface eater quality data (see Tab <br />'17, Probhbl~e Hydrologic"COniequences). Table 18-T presents the surface eater sites used <br />to substantiate the si9nif icance findings presented in the PHC analysis and for measuring <br />potential future mining impacts. ~ The following section summarizes how future mining <br />impacts on'bot h~surf ate water quality and quantity will be evaluated using monitoring data <br />collected~et~surf ace ware r~siYes'a[ Yoest. <br />Surface water Dua l•ity. ~~The significance of surface water quality impacts will be <br />evaluated by analyzing fur prominent trends of changing chemical concentrations over time. <br />Consistently increasing concentrations of chemical parameters ~witl be considered to <br />suggest mining impacts. Data collected at sites located above mining (i.e., YSSF3, see <br />iab~ 15, Hydrologic-Monitoring Program) will be used for evaluating whether any future <br />observed trends at"downgradient surface water monitors are due to background changes or <br />'result from mining. <br />Surface Water Quantity. Trending analyses, as mentioned in the previous section, will be • <br />used to evaluate mining impacts on surface water quantity. Consistent increases or <br />decreases in flow over time at surface water monitoring sites not dUe to snowmelt or <br />irrigatT on changes will both suggest mining impacts. Should trending analyses of flow <br />date suggest negative impacts from mining (decreasing flow [rends), Seneca will consider <br />more frequent flaw monitoring and further investigation to conf irm~whether trends reflect <br />nat Ural or non-mining causes ((rrigat ion) as opposed to mining impacts. <br />i <br />• <br />B <br />