Laserfiche WebLink
Ron Thompson <br />Page 3 <br />06/17/02 <br />2001 Report -Spring and Seep Surve <br />The spring and seep survey was conducted in Augustin accordance with the approved plan. <br />Spring #1 in Cherry Canyon and springs #2-7 in Alamosito Canyon were dry, as was the case in <br />2000. Springs #15, #16, and #17 in and near Ciruela Canyon were also dry. Spring #18 in <br />Parras Canyon was basically a seep. Spring #20 in Santistevan Canyon was noted as dry. Wet <br />Canyon springs showed little flow and were either variable flow between 0-7 gpm. pH and <br />conductivity readings indicate water quality is suitable for livestock and wildlife use. No impacts <br />to springs due to mining are apparent. However, given the apparent drawdown to the <br />overburden and coal seam, there is the potential that spring flows have been reduced or re- <br />located, especially to the north of the mined area. As the water levels recover in the bedrock <br />aquifers, flows in some springs may increase. Most springs are related to isolated perched <br />aquifers in the overburden or shallow rider coals seams that have not been impacted by mining. <br />The primary reason for changes in spring flow are climatic changes, specifically precipitation <br />variation. Current drought conditions are likely the major cause of reduced spring flows. <br />Dewatering of coal bed methane wells may also affect spring flows in the area and additional <br />flows from these wells in the headwaters of normally dry drainages may mask accurate readings <br />of springs. <br />2001 Report -Summa <br />Monitoring frequency compliance was not in accordance with the approved plan during 2001 <br />(see NOV CV-2002-008). Surface water quantity and quality changes are small to non-existent. <br />Surface water is no longer monitored at this site. Ground water quantity impacts are possible <br />and continued monitoring through the bond liability period should assist in identification of <br />potential mining impacts. Ground water quality impacts are not apparent and initial field <br />parameters taken from the mine workings indicate impacts to ground water quality are unlikely, <br />as mine water appears to be of similar quality as the baseline ground water quality. Actual water <br />samples of the flooded mine workings should have been taken during the 2001 water year, but <br />were not (see NOV CV-2002-008). <br />This concludes the Divisions review of the 2001 Annual Hydrology Report for the Golden Eagle <br />mine. Please respond to the issues as appropriate within 60 days of receipt of this letter. <br />Since ely, ~~~1z~ <br />K n Gorham <br />Environmental Protection Specialist II <br />cc: Dan Hernandez, DMG <br />Jerry Koblitz, Greystone <br />