Laserfiche WebLink
Mayo and /Issoclales, LC <br />• this cluster. The large number of closely spaced and essentially identical wells in this cluster <br />have not in the past and will not in the future provide meaningful hydrogeologic information <br />regarding mining impacts. <br />Recommended Changes: <br />Remove wells SW-l, SW-2, SW-3, SW-4, S~V-5, and SW-6 from the monitoring plan. <br />2.2.3 F-, E-, and B-Seam Wells <br />Discussion: <br />The current monitoring plan includes F-seam wells SOM-C-76, SOM-2-H and SOM-16-H, <br />E-seam wells 96-2-2 and 96-27-1, and B-seam wells SOM-C-72-H, RAV-4b, SOM-129-H <br />and So.W-1. All of the F-, E-, and B-Seam wells overlie areas that have yet to be mined or <br />which are near open mine workings. Mining induced water level changes have been <br />observed in some well hydrographs; however, these changes have not corresponded with <br />influxes of water into mine workings. Continuation of water level monitoring is important to <br />continue to document the relationship, or lack of, between mine water inflows and <br />groundwater systems in the overlying bedrock. No chemical abnormalities, which can be <br />attributed to mining, are observed in the historical monitoring data and there is no reason to <br />anticipate that mining will affect water quality in the future <br /> <br />Evaluation of the Wes[ Elk Mine Monitoring Plan <br />29 January 1999 <br />Page 6 <br />