2014-05-12_PERMIT FILE - C2010089 (3)

Home Browse Search

season and were measured at about 4.5 gpm. Spoil Spring #3 (SS #3) in the highwall was covered with backfill material when the old Peabody highwall was reclaimed in 1992. During 2001, SS #1 was again monitored (part of close out monitoring for old Peabody permit area) and the data from this monitoring is included in the Appendix 2.04.7 -2 to this section. While water quality was similar at SS #1 from 1987 to 2001, the flow rate appears to have increased 3 to 4 fold. The only explanation for this is that the surface owner has been irrigating (running water over the old highwall reclaimed and backfilled slope) since 1992 to enhance grazing opportunities. The springs in the toe area of the old Peabody backfill have a calcium magnesium sulfate type water quality with average TDS of around 3650 mg/1 and a pH of about 7.0 that varies little from irrigation season to non - irrigation season. This water quality is better than that of the coal zone and probably reflects a blend of waters from the OB, Coal and UB zones. In contrast, the spring in the high -wall, although being of a similar calcium magnesium sulfate type had a TDS of about 1660 mg/1 and an average pH of about 7.5. Irrigation run off produces areas of wetlands in low spots in the NHN permit area that dry out during the winter months. While these areas appear to be seeps they are totally dependent on ditch irrigation and would not exist without it. The spoil springs are still flowing and monitoring will resume after the permit has been approved and prior to mine development. There are no naturally occurring springs within the New Horizon North permit boundary. Present Ground Water Use Records of the State Engineers Office of the Division of Water Resources of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources were reviewed to determine the number and location of water wells that have been constructed (drilled) within a one (1) mile radius of the NHN proposed permit boundary. Thirty three (33) wells were identified and are located as shown on Map 2.04.7 -8. Table 2.04.7 -4 is a list of these wells showing the permit numbers, locations, depth, yield, static water level, well owner or applicant and the suspected aquifer zone in which each well has been completed. Three of these wells are water monitoring wells that were constructed by Peabody (in the Dakota Formation) and transferred (through the State Engineers Office) to Montrose County for their landfill. Some of the well locations reflect permit applications and are not necessarily constructed wells as some of the "well construction reports" were not available. Wells without construction details are identified on Table 2.04.7 -4 as they are missing depth, yield and static water level information. Some of the well information reviewed listed the formation or aquifer the wells were completed in while some did not. Table 2.04.7 -4 reports actual data where it could be found. None of the wells within a one mile radius of the NHN permit boundary draws its water from the Dakota Formation, LDx overburden, coal, or underburden zones. The most prolific aquifer in the area is the Brushy Basin Member of the underlying Morrison Formation, which is the uppermost sandstone of that formation. The Brushy Basin Member is well isolated from the Ldx overburden, coal and underburden zones by tight siltstone and shale of the lower Dakota Formation and mudstone of the Burro Canyon Formation. Potential Ground Water Use The overburden, coal and underburden zones in the NHN permit area are unsuitable for domestic drinking water and crop irrigation. The overburden and underburden zones, in most cases, would be marginal for livestock, while the coal zone would not. Low permeability, cyclic water levels and resulting low well yields greatly reduce any potential use of water from the three strata (OB, Coal, UB). Section 2.04.7 Page 11 October 2013 (TR -05) E: \New Horizon \DRMS \NHN Permit \04_Techmcal Revisions TR \TR -05 \Documents from Jason \2.04.7 Hydrology Description_TR- 05.docx