My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP13441
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP13441
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:43:44 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 1:13:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981034
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
9/25/1992
Doc Name
1991 ANNUAL HYDROLOGIC REPORT AHR REVIEW RED CANYON MINE FN C-81-034
From
DMG
To
MINREC INC
Annual Report Year
1991
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.
/
2
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
<br />Mr. Stover <br />Page 2 <br />Ground Water- The sediment pond piezometers, currently the only <br />ground water monitored, shows that the 1991 Water Year data is <br />lower than the average water level. The AHR states that the low <br />water levels reflect the dry conditions in the area and the lack of <br />run-off reaching the sediment pond. This explanation is acceptable <br />to the Division. During Division inspections, it has been noted <br />that there has been water in the pond but is probably due to direct <br />rainfall or snowfall into the pond. There appears to be no impact <br />on the alluvial piezometers that could be attributed to the mine <br />operation. <br />For future reports the Division recommends that the following items <br />be included: <br />1. A majority of the conclusions reached in the AHR were due to <br />dry conditions in the site because 1991 was a below average year <br />for snowpack and runoff. If these conclusions are made, the <br />Division must receive climate data for the area, with the source <br />identified, so that we can also make these same conclusions. <br />2. Units for all measurement readings should be identified in the <br />data tables. <br />3. Table G lists the top elevation of piezometer A-11 as 6333.5 <br />feet. The Division believes that this elevation should be 6433.5 <br />feet. Please make the correction in the 1992 AHR. Table G might <br />be more useful if the average water level for each piezometer is <br />provided, since they are no longer monitored. Also, an explanation <br />for the cumulative change in elevation for the refuse piezometers <br />should be provided in the text. <br />4. The AHR does not include any graphic representation of data for <br />the surface and ground water sites. The Division feels that a <br />clearer picture of the data can be shown with graphs. In future <br />AHRs, include graphs that will accurately portray what is going on <br />with the various hydrologic monitoring stations. <br />Based upon this review, no impacts have been noted of adverse <br />hydrologic impacts from the Red Canyon permit site. <br />S <br />Christine E'~Johnston <br />Reclamation Aecialist <br />RCREVAHR <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.