REP19890 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

insignificant impact are still valid. 4) The PHC predicts the horizontal extent of drawdown in the D and E seams, but does not predict the magnitude of the drawdown, other than stating that the maximum possible drawdowns would be equal to the saturated thickness of each of the aquifers...in other words, total depletion. Because wells completed in the E seam contain water, and the D seam was not mined, it is safe to say that total depletion has not occurred in either aquifer. 5) The PHC predicts a stream depletion in Ward and Williams Creeks of up to 7~ or 0.175 cfs, which is equal to the total mine inflow. The fluctuating stream flows show no evidence of a depleting trend. 6) The PHC predicts surface water degradation. TDS and SAR have actually been lower than the predicted levels for the past two years with the exception of the downstream SAR in September, 1994. Therefore, surface water quality does not appear to have been significantly affected by mining. 7) The table presented on page 2 of the AHR does not include units for TDS. Although the units are mentioned in the text, the operator should keep in mind, for future reports, should be readily comprehensible as a stand- alone unit to facilitate public review. 8 ) On page 3 of the AHR, the operator states that it is unlikely that the water level in well E-1 is representative of the water level in the mine. Please have the operator expand on this. Why is it unlikely to represent the water level in the mine. Doe the operator believe the water level in the mine to be above or below the water level in the well? Why? Does the operator believe that water levels in well E-1 have any relationship with water levels in the mine? 9) My views regarding the continuation of water level monitoring in wells E-1 and E-3 will depend, in part, on the operator's response to question 8). one well in the E seam is probably sufficient, and as well E-3 has been destroyed, it would seem superfluous to request that it be redrilled at this point. The main question is whether the water level data yielded by well E-1 are useful. That would depend on whether the intent of the well was to monitor water levels in the E seam aquifer or in the mine workings. It is unlikely that the well was intended to monitor mine water levels, as water typically rises faster in the mine workings than in the aquifer itself. If the intent of the well is to monitor levels in the aquifer, then the one well would appear to be sufficient, and well E-3 may be abandoned.