My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP09159
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP09159
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:38:51 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 12:03:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980005
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
1992 WATER YEAR ANNUAL HYDROLOGY REPORT SENECA II MINE
Annual Report Year
1992
Permit Index Doc Type
HYDROLOGY REPORT
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• (i.e., after two years worth of data). This analysis is provided belou- <br />Table 19 (Appendix A) provides staff gage readings for the fourteen stock tanks monitored. <br />The zero point for each staff gage was set at or near the deepest portion of each stock <br />tank. Therefore, staff gage readings correspond to the actual depth of water in each <br />pond. <br />Drawings end stage-capacity curves for each stock tank may be found in Exhibit 13-9 of the <br />Seneca lI PAP. However, these stage-capacity curves will not be used for the <br />determination of capacity. This is due to: 1) Stock Tanks 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 were <br />rebuilt after they were surveyed but before the first monitoring began, end 2) Stock Tanks <br />2, 5, 10 and 11 all experienced significant siltation during 1991 and 1992 making the <br />stage capacity curves unreliable. Only Stock Tanks 1, 3, and 4 have stage-capacity curves <br />that are still reasonably accurate. The reader may use the staff gage measurements for <br />those three stock tanks to determine water capacities. <br />As a result of the above mentioned problems, staff gage measurements will be used to <br />• assess water persistence from June through September of 1991 and 1992 (eight monthly <br />observations). Water was observed all eight months et Stock Tanks 1 and 2; seven months <br />at Stock Tanks 4, 5 and 8; five months et Stock Tanks 5 and 11; four months et Stock Tanks <br />7 and 12, three months at Stock Tanks 3 and 10; two months at Stock Tank 9; end one month <br />at Stock Tenk 13. No water has been observed at Stock Tank 25. <br />Wildlife tracks have been observed at all stock tanks except Stock Tank 25. Tracks <br />observed include deer, elk, birds, marmots, small rodents and coyotes. Individual <br />cbservations for each stock tank for each month are available upon request. <br />Sulfates and TDS values were used to evaluate the impacts that the stock tanks had on <br />down gradient Spoil Springs 1, 3 and 4. Table 20 (Appendix A) shows average TDS and <br />sulfate values for 1991 and 1992 and the percent increase for each value for these spoil <br />springs. Spoil Spring 1 had a 5.7 percent increase in TDS from 1991 to 1992, white Spoil <br />Springs 3 and 4 showed decreases of 0.5 and 0.6 percent, respectively. Sulfate <br />concentrations increased 4.3 to 8.4 percent for the three spoil springs from 1991 to 1992. <br />Contributing factors other than the existence of stock tanks (such as changes in the <br />• mining area, snowpack runoff, summer precipitation end vegetative cover) may also cause <br />changes in water chemistry. With [his being considered, along with the relatively small <br />23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.