REP07588 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Pond 1, approximately 0.8 acres, resulted from the mining of the 9 Right panel, and has remained since it first formed in 1996. The pond is located in a segment of the creek, which is more deeply incised, thus limiting the extent of ponding. The 2000 field observations reveal that the pond exists, although it is difficult to determine if it is decreasing in areal extent. Pond 2, approximately 0.3 acres, is [he smallest of the group, reflecting [he creek is deeply incised, which field observations verify. The 2000 field observations revealed that the pond exists, although it is difficult [o determine if it is decreasing in areal extent. Likewise, pond 3 is small in area extent, approximately 0.5 acres, and the 2000 field observations reveal that the pond exists. The upstream and downstream Flow regimes were reviewed to determine if stream flows were being impacted by the mining operation. Except for the disruption in flow associated with [he 9 Right Panel, no impacts have been observed. Table 73, Flow Comparison, Upstream and Downstream on Foidel Creek over Panel 5 Right Through 9 Right, indicates that during [he majority of the year the downstream site flows are greater than the upstream. Given the larger size of the drainage basin for the downstream site this increased flow is to be expected. During the later summer months and fall months the flows at [he downstream site are slightly lower than the upstream site. This could indicate that the creek is recharging the bedrock units located in the Foidel Creek drainage. The water quality, as presented on Table 74, compares sites 8 and 900 and shows that EC and TDS both improve as water flows downstream from site 8 [0 900. All of the other parameters do not show any significant • differences between the up and downstream sites. MIDDLE CREEK SUBSIDENCE IMPACTS As shown on Figure 136, Middle Creek Profile Over Panels 2 Right through 6 Right, no significant changes [o the creek channel is noted. Current survey data shows that no ponds were formed over the mined out panels. The Flow data presented on Table 75 indicates there is no lost of water from the system from the upstream to the downstream site. This pattern is consistent throughout the year. The water quality data indicates that both EC and sulfate concentrations typically increase from the upstream to the downstream sites. This could be a reFlection of the irrigation return flows having increased salt concentrations. However, [he water quality is not exceedingly degraded by this increase during the irrigation season. It is noted that iron concentrations are higher than on Foidel Creek. The iron concentrations in Middle Creek fluctuate, with the upstream site being lower than the downstream site during April and May and the downstream site lower than [he upstream site during August and September. These variations do not appear to be associated with the mining operation. I[ does not appear that undermining the creek resulted in detrimental impacu. SUMMARY • Except for the elevated conductivity and iron of mine dewatering at site 115, there have been no significant unexpected hydrology impacts attributable to the activities or developments a[ the Foidel Creek Mine during the 2000 Water Year. The previously noted declining water level trend in Wadge Overburden well 91M006 (Figure 13