My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP09616
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP09616
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:39:12 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 12:11:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981012
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
4/22/2002
Doc Name
2001 AHR
From
Greystone
To
DMG
Annual Report Year
2001
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.
/
78
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
zoo i <br />The effects on the side canyon drainages should be similar to the Purgatoire alluvium. Based on <br />general geologic mapping, the alluvial area of each canyon was multiplied by the permeability. The <br />water lost to seepage in Apache Canyon has been estimated at 0.3 gpm. This represents less than one <br />percent of the calculated runoff for this canyon system. <br />The Purgatoire River monitoring sites, PRS-1 and PRS-4, had flow throughout the year similar to <br />those encountered in previous years. However, high spring runoff prohibited flow measurements <br />during the May sampling. <br />Water supplies at New Elk were fumed off for the year and the sewage treatment plant (NE-033) was <br />out of service for the year. No discharges from any of the ponds at the property were recorded in <br />2001, due to limited operational activities and dry climate conditions. <br />Water levels for alluvial wells (PAW- series) were within historic ranges for water levels at <br />individual sites. The depth to water was less in the spring and greater in the fall, responding directly <br />to the level of water in the river. Water in these wells was the highest during the runoff event <br />experienced in May. <br />3.1.3 Groundwater <br />As might be anticipated from no noticeable impact from dewatering activities conducted in the <br />1980's, there has been no noticeable impact on groundwater hydrology from the gradual flooding of <br />the New Elk Mine. The apparent low vertical transmissivity and integrity of the surrounding rocks <br />might inhibit any effect of free water on the recharge of the overburden. The depths to which <br />recovery might be taking place are probably too far removed from the ground surface to manifest <br />any impacts at the surface (seeps and springs) at this time. <br />3.1.4 Piezometers <br />Refuse Disposal Area piezometer readings are included in this report (Tables A-20 through A-25). <br />TH-201, on the first bench, and TH-202 and TH-203 on the second and third benches had minimal <br />water throughout the year. Embankment stability, the primary purpose of the piezometers, is <br />discussed within the quarterly waste pile certifications. <br />3.2 WATER QUALITY <br />3.2.1 Springs and Seeps <br />The 2001 spring and seep survey occurred in August. Flows were down and alkalinity and <br />conductivity were elevated from previous sampling at most of the sites. There is no evidence that <br />mining activities have affected the water quality of springs or seeps, nor are such changes <br />anticipated. Additional discussion of springs and seeps is contained in Appendix B. <br />626-Annual Hydrolic Moni[aing (Apr.9.02).doc 15 <br />April 17, 2002 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.