Laserfiche WebLink
• No annual sample (short list) was reported for NEW-2, NEW-3, and NEW-4. <br />• Water level was not reported for TH-201, TH-202, and TH-203 for October and December. <br />The remainder of the water monitoring was completed in accordance with the approved plan. <br />Analysis of Data and Determination of Imaacts <br />Surface Water Quantity and Quality <br />Two stations on the Purgatoire River are monitored for flow and field parameters on asemi-annual basis, <br />and water quality on an annual basis. PRS-1 is located upstream of all New Elk mining activities and <br />PRS-4 is located downstream of all mining activities, yet upstream of the confluence of the North Fork of <br />the Purgatoire with the Middle Fork. Generally, flow relationships appear reasonable with some variation, <br />likely attributable to difficulties in accurate, in-stream flow measurements. Mean salinity, as measured by <br />total dissolved solids (TDS) was unchanged between the two sites, PRS-1 (200 mg/1) vs. PRS-4 (200 <br />mg/1), The Water Quality Control Division sets the applicable receiving stream standards for Region 7, <br />Lower Arkansas River Basin, Segment Sa. The classifications that apply to this segment are Aquatic Life <br />Cold 1, Recreation 1, Water Supply, and Agriculture. No exceedance of any physical, biological, <br />inorganic, or metal standard was noted in either the upstream or the downstream water sample data <br />reported. No identifiable impact to surface water quality or quantity is evident in the data collected and <br />reported. <br />Ground Water Quantit~nd Quality <br />Flooding of the mine workings continues at a rate close to what is estimated in Exhibit 8 of the permit <br />application. The Division erred in a previous statement that an "increasing trend of flooding of the mine <br />was apparent" in the data reported. The change in slope of the line on Figure 3.2-4 of the report is entirely <br />caused by a change in the frequency of data collection and the graphical miss-representation of this data. <br />The mine is filling at the rate of about 4 feet per year. Figure 3.2-4 also incorrectly graphs the elevation of <br />the water level when compared to data collected and the elevations of the top of the well casing as shown <br />in table 1.2-3 of the report. Please correct this graph in future reports. Required water quality samples <br />of the mine water were not taken in accordance with the approved plan. Therefore, mine water quality <br />cannot be determined at this time. (see NOV CV-2002-010) <br />Alluvial water levels, as indicated in wells PAW-I upstream of the mine and PAW-9 downstream of the <br />mine, continue to show normal variation due to seasonal influences and no impact to alluvial water levels <br />can be identified at this time. Water levels are near all-time lows, likely due to persistent drought <br />conditions. <br />Alluvial water quality remains slightly more saline than the surface water, which recharges the alluvium, <br />but is within an acceptable range for all known and current uses. TDS values in PAW-I were measured at <br />an abnormally low level again this yeaz (60 mg/1 in 2001, 80 mg/1 in 2000) as compared to previous years. <br />The reason for low TDS levels water at PAW-I is not apparent. Sampling error was suspected, but <br />consecutive low values may indicate another cause of this phenomenon. Quality changes due to mining <br />are not apparent. Some alluvial water quality changes would be expected due to the large amount of pre- <br />law coal waste deposited in direct contact with alluvial and surface waters. Water quality does degrade <br />slightly from upstream to downstream but alluvial water quality at PAW-9 remains good and is acceptable <br />for all uses. No impact to alluvial water from mining activities is apparent. <br /> <br />`\ __ <br />