Laserfiche WebLink
discharge, as the discharge generally drops to just a few gpm from January through May with a small peak <br />a typically in March coinciding with spring runoff. <br />The summary of the water quality data for the spring is presented in Tables 31 and 32. A plot of dissolved <br />solids for the No. 1 Strip Pit is presented in Figure 27 and iron concentrations aze presented on Figure 28. <br />Figure 27 indicates that the dissolved solids of the discharge has increased from an average of approximately <br />900 mg/1 in 1982 and 1983 to almost 1,400 mg/1 in 1986, and then decreased to approximately 1,100 mg/1 <br />since 1987. Figure 28 illustrates the variable nature of total recoverable iron concentrations in the Strip Pit <br />discharge. During 2001, these levels occurred within typical ranges seen for this site. <br />3.2.3 Ponds <br />There was no discharge from the sediment ponds in 2001. <br />4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS <br />No significant, unpredicted, or adverse impacts were detected during hydrologic monitoring for 2001, Thus, <br />under the temporary cessation monitoring plan, none of the seven events that might trigger reversion to the <br />active mining plan occurred (see TROI-32, Appendix D, June 21, 2001). Monitoring requirements were met <br />with the following two exceptions. 1) CDPS analytical sampling was not performed in December 2001 for <br />CDPS Outfalls 003 (SD), 022 (1SP) and 024 (9P3), although field parameters were measured. The DMG is <br />awaze of this situation. 2) A water level measurement was not measured for well 83-O1 during the first <br />quarter of 2001. Due to a change in two environmental personnel during the first quarter of 2001, a water <br />level was not measured for well 83-01 during the first quarter of 2001. Figure 7 provides a graph plotting <br />historic water level data for well 83-O1 (a table of the raw data dating back to 1984 has been inserted behind <br />this figure. Following our discovery of the omission, RAGEC personnel obtained a water level measurement <br />in Mazch 2002. This level is also plotted on Figure 7 and is in the raw data. The Mazch 2002 water level is <br />within historic levels. Historic data, including the March 2002 measurement, does not indicate significant <br />fluctuations associated with this well. Based upon this data, RAGEC is of the opinion that no significant <br />environmental impact has occun'ed from this well. <br />The water quality of all three sandstone aquifers did not indicate any new significant trends or adverse <br />impacts related to mining at the Nos. 5 and 6 Mines. Historically, a general drawdown in the Middle <br />Sandstone unit is the most noticeable effect related to mining operations associated with Mines 5 and 6. A <br />general historical drawdown effect in the Twentymile Sandstone unit is seen in the 9 Mine well. <br />The Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) section of the subject permit predicted dmwdown in the <br />Middle Sandstone unit associated with mining the F and E coal seams at Mines 5 and 6, although the extent <br />and magnitude of the drawdown were not quantified. A worst-case evaluation was, however, prepazed for <br />the overlying Twentymile Sandstone. The drawdown in Middle Sandstone Well TR-4 (attributable to past <br />• Iongwall mining in the E and F seams), at a distance of approximately one mile, was historically between 50 <br />7 <br />I:\Env\Empire\P,HR\2001\Tezt\Empire2001 AHR.doc <br />