Laserfiche WebLink
• 2.5 2000 Hydrological Data <br />Hydro-Engineering Inc.'s collation of the 2000 hydrological data for Trapper Mine is submitted as Section <br />2.5, following this discussion, and addresses: <br />a. Groundwater ............................................................................Sections 2.0-3.6 <br />(1j Groundwater level figures and tables .............................Appendix A <br />(2) Groundwater quality figures and tables .........................Appendix B <br />(3) Piezometric surface maps for the major aquifers ...........Maps 2-1 thti 2-3 <br />{4) Springs data ....................................................................Appendix B <br />b. Surface water ........................................................... ................ Sections 4.0.5.3 <br />(1) Water quality figures and tables ..................... ................Appendix C <br />(2) Flow measurement figures ............................. ................ Appendix C <br />(3) Flow vs TSS vs time figures ........................... ................ Appendix C <br />(4) Conductivity vs flow vs time figures ................ ................Appendix C <br />c. Observed impacts on the hydrologic systems .........................Section 6.0 <br />Included with the 2000 Hydrology Report is a green index sheet to keep the basic well data and aquifer <br />information available to the reader. This index is to be used as the reference and also a "bookmark" as <br />the section is reviewed. <br />2.6 Trends <br />• Hydro-Engineering's Section 6.0 discusses the observed impacts on the hydrologic systems of Trapper <br />Mine. In general, ground water levels continued to show decreasing trends in response to the relatively <br />lower recorded precipitation amounts measured the past three years. Surface water discharge peak flows <br />were also recorded at levels lower than average with the peak values associated with a rainfaN event in <br />September. Previousry noted conductivity increases in Johnson Gulch and East Pyeatt Guth surface <br />water discharges continue to be expressed. Likewise, the conductivity increase previousy noted at well P- <br />8, a 3'" Whfte Sandstone well situated downgradient of A pit mining in the Pyeatt drainage remained <br />evident in 2000. Hydro-Engineering's Section 6.0 discussion provides more details concerning these <br />observations and trends. Overall, Trapper continues to have little effect on the kxal hydrologic regime. <br />2.7 Spoil Spring Sampling (2000) <br />Trapper conducted spoil spring sampling throughout the permit area during 2000. Data from this <br />monitoring is presented in the 2000 Annual Hydrology Report Appendix B Table B-2. Spring and Seep <br />locations are shown on the Annual Hydrologic Report Map 2 (Sheets 1, 2, and 3) of this report Only a <br />handful of springs exceeded the 5 gpm sampling threshold during 2000. Only those springs with flows <br />exceeding 5 gpm are sampled for full suite analysis in accordance with the approved monitoring program. <br />Some sites on occasion, such as Fox Den in 1999, are sampled more frequently to provide additional <br />baseline quality. <br />2.8 WET Testing Results <br />In 2000, Three NPDES outfalls had Acute WET tests performed as required by NPDES Permit CO- <br />0032115 -sites 001, 002, and 011. In all cases the discharges showed no acute toxicity to the test <br />species. Summaries for the tests conducted during 2000 are included in Appendix C of Section 2.5. In <br />accordance with our NPDES permit only those drainages that receive pit dewatering or spoil spring <br />contributions are required to undergo WET testing. <br />uc~x ~ <br />M w+ru~wo~aav~ePrz.ooc <br />