Laserfiche WebLink
Trapper Mine 1992 Ann• Report (1'R-63) • <br />Response to Adequacy Review Comments <br />Page 2 -June, 1993 <br /> <br />CDMG Comment: <br />A. 6. Why does a spoil spring not develop near GF-5 like it has near GF-7? <br />Trapper Response: (George Hoffman) <br />A. 6. The water-level elevation recovery at well GF-5 has not been to a similar elevation to <br />~, J that of well GF-7 even though GF-7 exists slightly south of GF-5. The aquifer would <br />1`` be expected to have contained similar water-level elevations at these two locations <br />prior to mining. The transmissivity of the backfill aquifer aad adjacent aquifers in <br />these two areas must be different creating the significant difference in heads. There- <br />fore, the transmitting ability of the aquifer is thought to be the reason why a spring <br />develops near well GF-7 while it does not near well GF-5. <br />CDMG Comment: <br />B. Monitoring Frequency <br />1. Groundwater wells <br />a. The following wells missed two of four water level readings: GA-2, P-1. <br />• b. The following wells missed one of four water level readings: COY, GD-2, GF-4. <br />c. The monitoring plan shows GD-1(2) as scheduled to be monitored as per the plan <br />revised by MR-115 in January of 1992. Why was GD-1 monitored instead? Also <br />GD-1 is missing one level reading. <br />d. P-8 is missing one List C. <br />e. GLUX-I did not show a fluoride value. <br />f. GMP-1 is missing one Ra226 value. <br />g. P-1 is missing two List C and shows no test at all for List B. <br />h. if GA-2 cannot be sampled due to mud please note as such. <br />i. GF-4 is missing 2 Ra226 values. <br />j. GF-5 is missing 3 Ra226 values and the March List D is not present. <br />k. GF-7 is missing the June value for Ra226. <br />• <br />