My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP51352
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP51352
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:56:06 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 1:04:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
2/17/1989
Doc Name
1988 ANNUAL HYDROLOGIC REPORT THRU TABLE 39
Annual Report Year
1988
Permit Index Doc Type
HYDROLOGY REPORT
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
213
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
1 <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br />variation with a rapid rise and fall of flow rates during spring runoff. <br />Stations 14 and 800 often do not flow during the fall and winter because <br />they are near the top of the drainage. Due to the spoil springs, Foidel <br />Creek has flowed nearly year-round at site 800 since 1985. The flow at <br />Station 8 is maintained essentially year-round by the discharge from the <br />underground mine and discharges from the spoil springs. Zero flows <br />indicated for Sites 16, 69, 1001, 8, 1002, and 1003 during the winter <br />actually are usually due to the streams being frozen, preventing a <br />measurement of the flow. <br />The data indicates a fairly good correlation between upstream and downstream <br />stations on each stream. As expected the upstream stations generally had a <br />lower flow than the downstream stations on each stream. On Trout Creek the <br />downstream station showed a lower flow than the upstream station. The <br />rating curves will be rechecked in 1989 to confirm this pattern. The <br />downstream station on Fish Creek does not show any evidence of an increase <br />in discharge which may be due to Mine 2. The downstream sites at Mine 1, <br />however do show some effect due to spoil spring discharges. <br />Water Quality <br />Water quality samples are collected at all the primary sites on a regular <br />basis. The water quality summaries are presented on Tables 31 through 48. <br />' Plots of historic water quality data for Foidel Creek are presented on <br />Figures 34 through 37. A plot of historic water quality data for Fish Creek <br />is presented on Figure 38. A plot of-water quality data for Middle Creek is <br />' presented on Figure 39. Plots of historic water quality data for Trout <br />Creek are presented on Figures 40 and 41. <br />' No increase in salt loading is indicated by the 1988 data. This is probably <br />' due to the nearer to normal runoff in 1988. While the spoil springs are <br /> adding some manganese to Foidel Creek, the level at Station 8 is still below <br />' the total recoverable <br />i <br />i <br />h <br />l standard of 1000 mg/1. The spoil springs <br />l <br />d are causing <br /> a r <br />se <br />n t <br />e sa <br />t oa <br />ing at Station 8; however, the effect diminishes <br /> downstream and is not causing any material damage. No impacts were observed <br />' on the other streams. <br /> <br /> - 7 - <br />' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.