PERMFILE47324 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. More Detail on Ground Water Hydrology and Geology Additional investigation of the azea hydrology and geology has shown that a shale ridge exists to the south and west of the permit azea n,nning southeast to the northwest. This ridge is shown on the revised Exhibit 1. Since the shale is thick and is exposed directly on the surface, there is no way for groundwater to travel from azeas west of this ridge on Spring Creek Mesa to the permit azea, given that the groundwater gradient is to the northeast. See General Geology Cross Section of the azea on Exhibit 1. Given the groundwater gradient direction and the location of the ridge in relation to the pit, there are only 153 acres of irrigable area which could infiltrate groundwater under the Haldorson mine area! The opposition has presented the picture that very large amounts of groundwater enter the Haldorson site and that the pit will likely encounter this water, causing damage to users downstream among other problems. The geology and hydrology of the site shows that this simply will not happen. Lambert and Associates of Montrose, CO, a geotechnical firm with extensive experience in the azea as well as soil testing on Spring Creek Mesa, discusses the shale ridge, groundwater direction and other items related to the general geology of the site. This report is included in Appendix B. The additional geology information provided in this section coincides perfectly with the water well drilling performed by Haldorson in January of 2004. Well W-A8 at the south end of the permit azea encountered only shale. 4. Percolation Testing and Sieve Analyses In January of 2004, Lambert and Associates collected samples of the gravel from a representative depth and conducted sieve analyses as well as percolation tests in the Phase 1 mining area. The results of these tests aze presented in a Lambert report also included in Appendix B. The sieve analyses show that a very small portion of the material is less than 200 mesh (clay size) which would interfere with ground water movement. The two tests show 3.6% and 5.6% respectively. Lambert indicates that this gavel should have a fast permeability rate. Two test borings were also made in the Phase 1 area which were tested for percolation rates. Lambert states that the results show that the material offers little to no resistance to water flow. The combination of these two tests show that it is highly unlikely that water movement would be inhibited, therefore, any water movement from imgation would likely be neaz the bottom of the gravel. In the recent water well drilling in Phase 1, the drill logs show that the gravel neaz the bottom of the holes does contain some silt. Hole W-A 1 shows