My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1981-11-13_PERMIT FILE - C1981013 (28)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1981013
>
1981-11-13_PERMIT FILE - C1981013 (28)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/5/2020 10:45:34 PM
Creation date
12/11/2012 10:37:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
11/13/1981
Doc Name
Hydrology and Geology Information
Section_Exhibit Name
Volume 1 Rule 2 Exhibit 6
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
143
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
41 <br /> The equation on page 40 requires that the concentration of the <br /> I parameter of interest be known in both the mine discharge and the upstream <br /> 1 waters. The upstream concentrations (Cu) used in the calculations are the <br /> mean values for Stonewall (Table 5). Examination of the chemical data from <br /> the discharges at the two mines and from well LA 221A led to the conclusion <br /> that the long term quality of the Maxwell Mine discharge is best represented <br /> by the mean values for the current discharge from the Allen Mine. This <br /> conclusion is based on the fact that the observed quality of the Maxwell <br /> discharge varies widely due to the effect of activities within the mine. These <br /> activities have a more pronounced effect on the Maxwell discharge than on that <br /> from the Allen because the current discharge from the Maxwell is very small . <br /> Furthermore, the composition and total dissolved solids observed at Well LA 221A <br /> near the Maxwell mine compare more closely with the Allen discharge than with <br /> the Maxwell , (Fig. 11 ) indicating that the eventual quality of the Maxwell <br /> discharge will be essentially the same as the current Allen flow. Therefore, <br /> values of Cm used in the computations are the mean values for the Allen Mine <br /> given in Table 5. <br /> Discharge of mine water into the stream will have the most pronounced <br /> 9 <br /> effect when the stream discharge is smallest. Available discharge records <br /> at Stonewall above the two mines of interest and at Madrid below indicate <br /> that the mean weekly low flows at these stations are about 5 cfs and 10 cfs, <br /> respectively. The mean low flow at the Maxwell should be between these <br /> two values. To be entirely on the safe side, a mean low flow discharge of <br /> 5 cfs was used for Qu in the above computations at the Maxwell Mine. A <br /> conservatively large estimate of 20 cfs was used for computing the change <br /> in concentrations at mean flow. It is believed that the increases indicated <br /> in Table 7 are substantially greater than will actually occur. Even so, <br /> the calculations show that the most significant effect will be to increase <br /> the total dissolved solids. The indicated changes in trace element concen- <br /> trations are so small that it is not likely that they can be detected by <br /> even an intensive monitoring program. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.