Laserfiche WebLink
Pond I, approximately 0.8 acres, resulted from [he mining of the 9 Right panel, and has remained since it first <br />formed in 1996. The pond is located in a segment of the creek, which is more deeply incised, thus limiting the <br />extent of ponding. The 1999 field observations reveal that the pond exists. although i[ is difficult to determine if it <br />is decreasing in areal extent. <br />Pond 2, approximately 0.3 acres, is the smallest of the group, reFlec[ing [he creek is deeply incised, which Held <br />observations verify. The 1999 field observations revealed [ha[ the pond exists, although it is difficult to determine <br />if it is decreasing in areal extent. Likewise, pond 3 is small in area extent, approximately 0.5 acres, and the 1999 <br />field observations reveal that the pond exists. However, with [Iris pond a beaver has taken up residence and used <br />the area of the gateroad over which to construct Iris dam, thus augmenting [his surface feature. <br />The upstream and downstream Flow regimes were reviewed to determine if stream Flows were being impacted by <br />the mining operation. Except for the disruption in flow associated with the 9 Right Panel, no impacts have been <br />observed. Table 73, Flow Comparison, Upstream and Downstream on Foidel Creek over Panel 5 Right Through <br />9 Right, indicates that during the majority of the year the downstream site flows are greater than the upstream. <br />Given the larger size of [he drainage basin for the downstream site this increased flo+v is to be expected. During <br />the later summer months and fall months the flows at the downstream site are slightly lower than the upstream <br />site. This could indicate that the creek is recharging the bedrock units located in the Foidel Creek drainage. <br />The water quality, as presented on Table 74, compares sites 8 and 900 and shows [hat EC and TDS both improve <br />• as water Flows. downstream from site 8 to 900. All of [he other parameters do not show any significant <br />differences behveen the up and downstream sites. <br />M[DDLE CREEK SUBSIDENCE IMPACTS <br />As shown on Figure 136, Middle Creek Profile Over Panels 2 Right through 6 Right, no significant changes to <br />the creek channel is noted. Current survey data shows that no ponds were formed over the mined out panels. <br />The flow data presented on Table 75 indicates there is no lost of water from the system from the upstream to the <br />downstream site. This pattern is consistent tltrougltout the year. The water quality data indicates that both EC <br />and sulfate concentrations typically increase from [he upstream to the downstream sites. Tltis could be a <br />reFlection of the irrigation remm flows having increased salt concentrations. However, the water quality is not <br />exceedingly degraded by this increase during the irrigation season. It is noted that iron concentrations are higher <br />than on Foidel Creek. The iron concentrations in Middle Creek fluctuate, with the upstream site being lower than <br />the downstream site during April and May and the downstream site lower than the upstream site during August <br />and September. These variations do not appear to be associated with the mining operation. It does not appear that <br />undermining the creek resulted in detrimental impacts. <br />• <br />-13 <br />