Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Flooding of the mine workings continues at a rate close to what is estimated in Exhibit 8 of the permit application. <br />Water levels in the three monitored locations that penetrate the mine workings have increased in elevation an <br />average of 14.6 feet over 1996 levels and 7.6 feet over 1997 levels. <br />Alluvial water levels, as indicated in wells PAW-I upstream of the mine and PAW-9 downstream of the mine <br />continue to show normal variation due to seasonal inFluences and no impact to alluvial water levels can be identified <br />at this time. <br />Conductivity levels are slightly modified from PAW-I (480 umhos/cm) upstream to PAW-9 (696 umhos/cm) <br />downstream. Alluvial water quality remains slightly more saline than the surface water, which recharges the <br />alluvium, but is within an acceptable range for all known and current uses. Quality changes due to mining are not <br />apparent. Some alluvial water quality changes would be expected due to the large amount of pre-law coal waste <br />deposited in direct contact with alluvial and surface waters. <br />Sorina and Seep Survey <br />The spring and seep survey was conducted in August this year in accordance with the approved plan. Spring Flows <br />have been variable over the historic monitoring period and are generally small, having only a localized importance <br />to wildlife or livestock. There is no evidence at this time that mining activities have reduced or impacted the springs <br />in the area. <br />Summary <br />Monitoring frequency compliance was excellent in 1998. Surface water quantity and quality changes are small to <br />no existent and due to the possibility of only limited discharge, surface water impacts are not expected. Ground <br />water quantity impacts are not apparent and should be minimal due to the continued idle slams of the operation. No <br />further coal mining at this location is curtently planned and processing activities should have a minimal impact on <br />ground water quantity and quality. Flooding of the workings continues at [he rate estimated in [he permit. <br />Based on review of the 1998 Annual Hydrology Report for the New Elk Mine, the Division has the following <br />questions. <br />I. What accounts for [he inconsistent flow values recorded at PRS-1 when compared to PRS-4? How is the <br />Flow determined at these two sites? i <br />t999 ~'cw ~a dues ~~ /, <br />If you have any questions, please call me. <br />Sincerely, <br />~dZ4 ~(~' .-'" <br />~~ <br />Ken[ Gorham <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />cc: Dan Hernandez, DMG <br />