Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A brief comparison of the various discharges to Foidel Creek was conducted. <br />The operator's contention that the underground discharge (site 109) is small <br />when compared to the discharges from the surface mine is correct. During the <br />spring runoff, discharges from the surface mine were much greater than the <br />underground mine discharge; the underground discharge was about 12% of the <br />total surface mine discharge (Table 1). During June and August, the <br />underground discharges were about 9% and 25% of the total surface mine <br />discharges, respectively. However, when the underground mine discharge is <br />compared to the discharge measured at Site 8, the underground discharge was <br />actually greater than the flow at Site 8, beginning about July 10, 1987 and <br />co~inuing through September 1987. <br />It is also interesting to note that the stretch of stream between Stations 800 <br />and 8 apparently loses flow throughout the year. For example, during April <br />1987, about 0.3 cfs of the total water available was lost, and during June <br />1987, about 0.8 cfs seem to be leaving the surface water system. Some of this <br />loss may be due to measurement error, but it seems possible that a portion of <br />flow is being discharged to the alluvial aouifer. It is interesting that the <br />amounts lost from the surface system are similar to the discharge values <br />observed for Site 109. It is also interesting to note that much of the flow <br />leaving Pond A is not recorded at Station 800. Perhaps the faults in the <br />Pinnacle Peak area may account for some of the apparent loss of flow. <br />General Comments <br />The Figure 2, included with the report should be updated to show Sites 304 and <br />307. Also, Site 302 is depicted, but is apparently not a required monitoring <br />site. Future map submittals must be certified. <br />