Laserfiche WebLink
gulch flow available. The hydrologic head of the toe seeps (if they were gulch interflow) <br />would be of greater pressure and possible flow release then the emergent notch. <br />However, this does not seem to be the case because flows are observed in the geotextile <br />channel when the toe seep is dry. <br />The geotextile channel was created to collect `seepage' water that historically tended to <br />emerge at the Level 6 pad level. The previous operator had to cut into the hill slope and <br />create a notch where flows could emerge and combine from the hill slope. A pooling area <br />was created at this notch to capture all of the seeps. The seeps are observable in the <br />spring time and occur high within the carved soil profile of this notch. The geotextile <br />liner is impermeable to flow. Given these site setting characteristics, the geotextile <br />channel design appears to be adequate to capture gulch-related flows. <br />DRMS has expressed a concern that the wells may be capturing water quality affected by <br />waste rock. A thorough analysis of the well cutting solids and well water quality was <br />completed as part of the Hydro report. The solids did not demonstrate a signature <br />indicating that waste rock was affecting the underlying alluvium solids (there was no <br />transport of acid generating characteristics or effects by depth; nor was there any <br />continuum of waste rock leaching characteristics into the underlying alluvium). The <br />solids did not demonstrate that there has ever been a complete `flow pathway' of water <br />through the waste rock to the alluvium. The well appears to capture mixed waters <br />created by geologic formation contact water. <br />DRMS suggests that the aspen trees within the gulch, above the pad provide a line of <br />evidence that interflow exists. Aspen habitat is dependent on altitude, slope, aspect, soil <br />type, as well as water sufficient for growth, and not necessarily an indicator of interflow. <br />Regardless of the presence of aspen trees, and assuming that some interflow exists, we <br />believe that available flows have been adequately captured in the geotextile channel. <br />DRMS suggests that a better location for a well to test the Gulch flow pathway would be <br />to place a well in this upper area. We disagree because Well B (please review the well <br />cutting profile) is in direct line with the potential gulch flow pathway and based upon its <br />profile, is serving as a direct reflection of any groundwater that would occur in the <br />underlying formations. Furthermore, the logistical difficulty in placing a well in that area <br />would be significant. <br />As a final point of clarification, it appears that DRMS is concerned that the waste rock <br />pile is acting like a `sponge' and is creating the water quality concerns observed at the toe <br />seeps. From a pragmatic standpoint it is impossible for the waste rock pile to be able <br />provide such a significant source of water, as well as the observed metals loading and <br />diminished pH. The waste rock pile is a finite source of aged waste rock that could not <br />2