Laserfiche WebLink
_l~b .b r~ otection of Hyorologic k5e lance <br />Uetailea descriptions, maps and czoss-sectional drawings regarding <br />the quality and quantity of surface antl subsurface water at the <br />heenesburg Mine is summarized in Hppendir. 1, and Section 2.09.7, <br />Hydrological Uescription. The baseline piezome[ric map for the <br />er.t ension area can be 3ountl in Appendix 1 of the original <br />application (first 5 year plan. Appendix i-2 of this text (second <br />live year plan) shows the present piesometric surface in the <br />extension area. <br />The sub-suziace water gradient, es it er.ists in the spoil, presently <br />slopes to the east. kecharge o.f the spoil aquifer appears to have <br />two primary sources: 1) infiltration by precipitation and Y) <br />recharge by standing water in the pit area. there is no indicat.i on <br />that signiri cant. recharge from the Ennis Uraw fluvial ground-water <br />system exists. Sub-surface water elevations in the wells existing <br />in Ennis Uraw ao7acent to the I:eenesburg Mine ere significantly <br />higher tnan in either spoil monitoring wall, see Appendir. 1-2. <br />The lack of recharge of the spoil aquifer system by the subsurface <br />waters in Ennis Uraw ere anticipated to be a result of limiting the <br />eastern er.tent of mining. In the second 5 year permit area, <br />sub-surface water conditions similar to those found in Ennis Drsw do <br />not exist. <br />i'he probable hyorologic consequences in the proposed extension area <br />are summarized in the Water Resources and Impact Evaluation Report, <br />• Appendix I. <br />No appreciable effect on the hydrologic budget of the area is <br />anticipated, and that water levels in the mined area will recover to <br />approximately their original levels following the end of mining <br />(McWhorter). Water quality information gathered over the past 8 <br />years conYirms this (see Appendix J-1, J-2). Treatment of <br />sub-surface and ground-water will not be necessary. <br />i'he mayor tlifference in Yindinq_s between the ground-water studies <br />conducted in 197ti by McWhorter and what is anticipated to be <br />encountered in the proposed extention area is the lack of predicted <br />inflows into the active pit areas. Refer to Section 2.04.7, <br />Hytlrologic Uescription. <br />Appendix Map M-1 shows the location of significant water diversion, <br />collection, conveyance, storage and discharge structures (these <br />include the perimeter ditch and sediment ponds)located in the first <br />five year permit area. Due to the highly permeable sand mantle that <br />surrounds the mine, these structures do not convey/hold water for <br />any period of time, except when they penetrate the ground-water <br />table, (i.e. Sediment Yond #2). <br />No significant water diversions, collection, conveypnce, storage and <br />disci~arge structures exist in the second 5 year permit area. There <br />. az-e no areas of spoil, waste, dams, embankments and other <br />impoundments. Also, no water treatment and air pollution control <br />facilities exist within the second 5 year permit area. <br />-126- <br />