Laserfiche WebLink
• 10-12 in West Roatcap Creek, showed upward historic trends in conductivity. The <br />Division has the following question: <br />The Division believes that the 1999 conductivity data and the historic <br />conductivity data for ponds 10-1, IO-5 and 10-12 show fairly significant upwazd <br />trends. Although pond 10-1 is not in the same drainage as ponds 10-5 and 10-12, <br />the three ponds aze fairly close to each other and are along the same ridge line, as <br />shown on Map 4-1 of the 1999 AHR. If BRL agrees with this assessment, please <br />offer an explanation for these trends. If BRL does not agree with the Division's <br />assessment, please explain why. <br />The Division's review of the ground water data in the 1999 AHR shows either seasonal <br />variation or no changes in water levels in the ground water monitoring wells. The <br />seasonal variations and no changes in water levels are in line with the historic data. <br />However, there are two wells, SM-09 and SM-10 that appear to show historic increases in <br />the conductivity levels. The Division has the following question: <br />8. The Division's review of the historic conductivity levels in wells SM-09 and SM- <br />10, shown on monitoring point chart pages 34 and 35 respectively, appear to show <br />fairly significant increases in conductivity over time. If BRL agrees, please <br />explain the possible cause. If BRL does not agree with the Division's assessment, <br />please explain why. <br />There are two items involving the AHR format that the Division has comments on. <br />The table of contents for the section on "monitoring point tables" is not the <br />correct table of contents. The table of contents in that section is for the <br />"monitoring point chart." Please provide the correct table of contents so that the <br />page can be replaced. <br />10. The scale of the flow axis for the chart on SW-10, found on page 3 of the <br />monitoring point chart section is too large. It makes it almost impossible to see <br />the history of flow for that location. Please modify this chart for the next AHR. <br />19991~Iine Inflow Resort <br />There was no annual mine inflow study conducted in 1999 due to the temporary closure <br />of the mine. Historically, mine water inflows have not been significant. Water usase was <br />restricted to water consumption at the train loadout, mine bath house and road dust <br />suppression. <br />1999 Subsidence Report <br />• The 1999 subsidence monitoring locations were concentrated in t~vo zones. The first zone <br />was in Stevens Gulch and included, among other locations, the Pitkin Vlesa pipeline. The <br />3 <br />