Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />suspect levels in a significant number of samples. However, given the <br />projected near no~~tral 'n,;{ rbasAd on pH and buf`e~ing capd~_ity or' the !dodge <br />overburden strata) post-mining, and the relative immobility of nickel at a <br />neutral pH, neither plant growth nor water quality would be negatively <br />impacted. This conclusion is validated by water quality monitoring and <br />vegetation monitoring conducted to date by CYCC, <br />The operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. <br />VI, Hydrologic Balance - Rules 2.04.5, 2.04.7, 2.05,3(41, 2,05.5(3) and 4.05 <br />A. Ground Water Information <br />Detailed information characterizing the ground water in the permit and <br />adjacent area is presented in sections 779.15 and 780.21 of the C-81-071 <br />permit document. Additional ground water information is contained in permit <br />application Map 6; Twentymile Park Hydrology; and Maps 11-12, Overburden <br />Aquifer Piezometric Surfaces. <br />Information presented in these sections describes ground water flow and <br />quality in the permit area. Pre- and post-mining ground water impacts are <br />discussed. This information is summarized in Section IX of this document. <br />B. Surface 'dater Information <br />General surface water information is described in sections 779.16(I) and <br />780.21(II) of the updated C-81-071 Permit Document. Baseline data can be <br />found in Tables 11-14 of the C-81-071 Permit Document. Permit Revision Maps <br />9-13 and Maps 6, 13 and 14 of the C-81-071 Permit Application Document show <br />the location of streams, ponds and springs within the permit area, <br />Surface water discussion for the Eckman Park Complex renewal focused on the <br />impact of spoils springs on surface waters outside of the permit area, and the <br />development of a water monitoring plan adequate to assess predicted impacts, <br />The applicant updated their probable hydro]ogic consequences evaluation using <br />1986 spring monitoring data and the report entitled "Backfilled Hydrologic <br />Evaluation" which was submitted in April, 1986, This information resulted in <br />the assessment that worst-case spoils springs hydrographs could be predicted <br />using a recharge-discharge water balance based on infiltration recharge rate <br />of 0.25 ft/year. Peak spoils discharges would occur for ~ix weeks during <br />April and May and would discharge at a rate of 3.23 X 10- cfs/ acre of <br />backfilled spoil, Low flow discharges would occur between August and February <br />and discharge at a rate of 1.783 X 10-4 cfs/acre of backfilled spoil. The <br />spoils studies also showed some variation between mined areas, which seemed to <br />reflect differences resulting from overburden lithologies, period of time <br />since mining and backfilling techniques. Mine 2 and Mine 3 are producing <br />smaller spoils discharges than predicted by the empirical equation developed <br />from springs at Mine 1 and Eckman Park. Impacts to Fish Creek from Mine 2 are <br />practically non-existent at this time. <br />Ia <br />