REP40011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alluvial Well No. 2. Because the alluvial sediments associated with East Salt Creek have been designated as it correspond to GW-1 and GW-6, respectively. Well GW-3 appears to correspond to an alluvial valley floor, certain surveys and geohydrologic data are required. Please see Rule 2.06.8 (4)(c)(iv).. At a minimum, well completion logs and drill logs should be submitted for all monitoring wells that are included in the approvedlmonitoring plan. If sufficient data exist, a groundwater contour map should be developed and updated annually with the future AHR submittals for East Salt Creek Alluvium. Figures 4.1-3 through 4.1-6 present boring logs (with well completion information) for four of the alluvial wells, which appear to correspond to GW-2, GW-3, GW-4, and GW-5. No other well completion logs or drill logs are presented in the permit document or AHR for any of the other monitoring wells. To clarify these discrepancies, the Division recommends that a new appendix 6e inserted into each permit or that the existing documents be amended with updated information succinctly presenting the approved groundwater monitoring programs. The nomenclature for each well should be clearly identified and~the corresponding baseline data, drill logs and well completion information provided. The water sample location map (Figure 4.2-2) should be updated accordingly and if appropriate a groundwater contour map should be developed for the East Salt Creek Alluvium. Please include in the updated appendices, a well completion summary table of active monitoring wells. Please include in the table at a minimum the following information: surface elevation, measuring point elevation, type of casing, diameter of casing, total depth of well, and perforated interval, and formation completed in. 4. On page 5 of the AHR it is stated that the effect that the mine has on the groundwater hydrology of East Salt Creek has not been detected. Yet data from GW-3 as indicated by Table 5 of the AHR shows nearly a threefold increase in conductivity from the baseline year average to the 2005 year average. There also appears to be a significant drop in the water level measured at this well. It is further indicated on page 5 that GW-3 is located outside of the influence of the irrigation of the hay field that affected Well GW-4. Given this information, it is unclear what might explain the conductivity increase, and whether there may be some mine related effect on the East Salt Creek Alluvium. Further explanation and discussion is warranted in this case under Probable Hydrologic Consequences section of the AHR. ~ There appears to be a discrepancy with reference to the baseline data for GW-3 on Table 5 of the AHR (AW-6 = GW-3). Comparison of Figure 4.1-2 with Figure 4.2-2 of the McClane permit and cross-referencing this to Table 2.5-1 of the Munger permit appears to show that MW-2 = GW-3. It is unclear if MW-2 equates to AW-6.i Please check the reference to baseline data for GW-3 on Table 5 of the AHR, and update Table 5 if appropriate. Both permits need to be amended as necessary to ensure that the relationship of AW, MW, and GW well designations is clear, consistent, and correct. 3