Laserfiche WebLink
April 10, 2003 <br />Page 2 of 2 Pages <br />through 77) and a summary of impacts (pages 49 and 50) is provided in the report. CEC reports no <br />adverse affect on the overall hydrologic balance of the Keenesburg Mine. <br />After recovering about four feet, the static water level in SMW 2 appeared to be stable at an <br />elevation of4758 feet. This well is located in an azea of spoil backfill, approximately 400 feet east of <br />the south end of B Pit. The open B Pit is hydrologically isolated from this well by a clay liner. <br />However, the static water table at this point may not fully recover until backfill of B Pit is complete. <br />AMW 2, adjacent to and down gradient of A Pit, also in an azea of spoil backfill, continues to show <br />sign of recharge of the water table. It had remained dry during 1998, had some water in it during the <br />last two quarters of 1999 (report, page 45), had enough water that samples could be taken in 2000, <br />and had water again in 2001 (up 4 feet in 4'h quarter 2000 - 2001 readings). By the end of 2003 it had <br />recovered approximately seven feet, to an elevation of 4767. <br />Well AMW 1 is located at the northern boundary of B Pit. There appeazs to be seasonal fluctuation of <br />specific conductance between 1510 and 1610 (report, page 67). No baseline information was found <br />for this well, but the base lines for DH 96, another down-gradient well, ranged between1700 and <br />2100. Other alluvial wells had values as high as 7000 (Permit, Appendix J). Total dissolved solids <br />concentrations ranged from 1500 to 7000+, making the ground water mostly unsuitable even for <br />irrigation (Permit, page 50). DH 96 is the most down-gradient and most northerly of the monitoring <br />wells. DH96 total dissolved solids were 1370 in a March 14, 2002 sample. All pazameters appear to <br />be within historic ranges with no deviant trends. <br />Probable hydraulic consequences of mining aze described in Appendix I of the Permit (pages 46 <br />through 48). In summary, ground water sources are not expected to be affected, and existing <br />quantities of water passing through the leasehold, once the water levels have recovered, should not <br />be significantly altered. Degradation of water quality is not expected. No trends or information <br />contradict these predictions. <br />Files C-81-028 2002 AHR <br />C:\W PDOCS\Keenesburg\ahmw02.doc <br />