Laserfiche WebLink
Creek.olnduced re hadrge would be expected to ghow tup withahe onset of min ng beneath theeFoide{ICreek Valley. <br />• would de line back ~olpremin ng condiuofnstasypotentiometri gcondi ions equilitbrate.f lftinduced rechargehfrom <br />thetdFo del CreektValley in 1984.[ Alluvial wellP S 5 and S 6hcompleted near he mini g operatttons beneath dthe <br />durinl Ctheefirstayear ofvmm ng beneathpFoidelCreek was 83.2 gpm.mInduged recharge fromyFo delrCreekf is a <br />g <br />relatively small fraction of this total. <br />thedst eam or by indu edaeclhargef directly f om the sttteams tThet baseline hydrologic analysisd indicates thatery <br />little groundwater discharges to Fish Creek from the deeper unit units along the reach where the Wa ge <br />ear that oundwater discharge <br />overburden unit would be affected by underground mining. Thus, it does not app gr <br />rechar elsto ageldio harge Celationshipb between Fish Creek and[ thesabsociated alluvium It Relativerele Cations <br />g <br />between alluvial deposits and base or high Flow levels may change, and location and extent of streamside alluvia <br />oceur1t Thesechanges w 11 oc ur alongga verysshort segm nt of Foh Creek.aThistPs located io the area aboovet and <br />immediately downstream of the o5sttsf and the alural response of ahe dytnamic steam s ytemtlover [ime[e Induced <br />small areal extent of alluvial dep <br />recharge is not likely to occur because of the aquitards located between the Wadge Coal and Fish Cree . <br />affellsurface water Flo ~ or water quality characterisdcsntThe placemen tof wastes in the pit decreasesphe storage <br />capacity. While this may result theneomentanandtrelativetly small when comparled tot surface rvunoff aontlributnons ~o <br />fluids by solids is a temporary p <br />the pit. About 5 ft' of water will be produced for every yard of waste placed in the pit, provided the pit is at the <br />overflow level. The estimated volume of waste rock disposed in the pit foossible that as the pit is partially~ftlled, <br />This would equate to a displacement of discharge of about 0,001 cfs1ncrease slightly. Total salt load would remain <br />pit water evaporation could decrease and, therefore, discharge may <br />unchanged, and any increase in flow would be associated with a proportional decrease in dissolved solids. <br />The leaching characteristics of the waste rock indic'acedatTherefore dwe do not antic patetany increomental adverse <br />trace metals than the backfill in which it is being p <br />water quality deterioration due to this activity, other than perhaps a slight shift in ionic composition o water <br />dtckfilgsdoilTwater.'cThe ]eachtloestsf suggest higherrlevels of sodium and lowedlevels of calcium m waste rock <br />ba p <br />leachates than in backf'ill spoils. Thus, we could expect a slight shift in the chemical composition of tsc arge <br />but the ma nude of increase should be <br />from the Area 2 pit. SAR values coul ee ofecationtexchange within the waste rock pla~ed in the Area 2 pit. <br />slight and would depend upon the degr arisen of the <br />The inflow to the 6 Right Gateroad area began in the November and December of 1997. A comp <br />inflow rates to streamflow data [Exhibit 51, Figure E51-I) does not indicate any impact to the stream flow from t e <br />an are ver similar and both the mine <br />increased mine inflows. The stream ear to berrespondingtto seasonal~anations in recharge and runoff. A <br />infows and the stream inflows app <br />comparison of the surface water quality of the 6 Right inflow to that of Foidel Creek water (Site 8) and to spot <br />similar\conducivPy,)dissolvedcsolids and btctarbonatebconcentrationsheWh a the 6tRightdwat rsPs sim larrtothe <br />.spoil water, it has an elevated sodium concentration. This may be due to ion exchange (see Exhibit 38 and <br />pppROVED dUN 2 R 2000 <br />2.05-160 <br />03/28!00 <br />PR 99-OS <br />