Coal Diver
Everything you wanted to know about coal, but were afraid to ask.
This is a text-only version of the document
"OSM Leaked Proposed Stream Rule Changes - Ch 3.5,3.7-8 - 2011".
To see the original version of the document
click
here.
1 2
CHAPTER 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT......................................................................... 3-1 3.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Mineral Resources and Mining ............................................................................ 3-1 Geology and Seismicity ....................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 3.3 Soils...................................................................................................................... 3-1 Geomorphology and Fluvial Processes................................................................ 3-1 3.4 3.5 Topography .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.5.0Introduction .................................................................................................. 3-1 3.5.1Appalachian Basin ....................................................................................... 3-4 3.5.1.1 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region .......... 3-4 3.5.1.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method ....................... 3-4 3.5.1.3 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC .................................. 3-5 3.5.1.4 Coal Waste Disposal .......................................................... 3-9 3.5.2Colorado Plateau ........................................................................................ 3-12 3.5.2.1 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region ........ 3-12 3.5.2.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method ..................... 3-12 3.5.2.3 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC ................................ 3-13 3.5.3Gulf Coast .................................................................................................. 3-13 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region ........ 3-13 3.5.3.1 3.5.3.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method ..................... 3-14 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC ................................ 3-14 3.5.3.3 3.5.3.4 Coal Waste Disposal ........................................................ 3-15 3.5.4Illinois Basin .............................................................................................. 3-15 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region ........ 3-15 3.5.4.1 3.5.4.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method ..................... 3-16 3.5.4.3 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC ................................ 3-16 3.5.4.4 Coal Waste Disposal ........................................................ 3-16 3.5.5Northern Rocky Mountains........................................................................ 3-17 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region ........ 3-17 3.5.5.1 3.5.5.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method ..................... 3-17 3.5.5.3 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC ................................ 3-18 3.5.5.4 Coal Waste Disposal ........................................................ 3-18 3.5.6Northwest ................................................................................................... 3-18 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region ........ 3-18 3.5.6.1 3.5.6.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method ..................... 3-19 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC ................................ 3-19 3.5.6.3
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES i
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
3.6 3.7
3.5.6.4 Coal Waste Disposal ........................................................ 3-19 3.5.7Other Western Interior ............................................................................... 3-20 3.5.7.1 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region ........ 3-20 3.5.7.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method ..................... 3-21 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC ................................ 3-21 3.5.7.3 3.5.7.4 Coal Waste Disposal ........................................................ 3-21 Surface Water (To Be Provided Separately) ...................................................... 3-21 Groundwater ...................................................................................................... 3-21 3.7.1Appalachian Basin ..................................................................................... 3-22 3.7.1.1 Primary Appalachian Basin Aquifers ............................... 3-22 3.7.1.2 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow......................................... 3-27 3.7.1.3 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality .................................... 3-29 3.7.1.4 Groundwater Withdrawals. .............................................. 3-31 3.7.2Colorado Plateau ........................................................................................ 3-38 3.7.2.1 Primary Colorado Plateau Aquifers ................................. 3-38 3.7.2.2 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow......................................... 3-44 3.7.2.3 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality .................................... 3-45 3.7.2.4 Groundwater Withdrawals in Colorado Plateau............... 3-46 3.7.3Gulf Coast .................................................................................................. 3-49 3.7.3.1 Primary Gulf Coast Aquifers............................................ 3-49 3.7.3.2 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow......................................... 3-55 3.7.3.3 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality .................................... 3-55 3.7.3.4 Groundwater Withdrawals in Gulf Coast ......................... 3-56 3.7.4Illinois Basin .............................................................................................. 3-59 3.7.4.1 Primary Illinois Basin Aquifers........................................ 3-61 3.7.4.2 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow......................................... 3-62 3.7.4.3 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality .................................... 3-64 3.7.4.4 Groundwater Withdrawals. .............................................. 3-67 3.7.5Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains ............................................ 3-71 3.7.5.1 Volcanic- And Sedimentary-Rock Aquifers .................... 3-71 Unconsolidated-Deposit Aquifers .................................... 3-71 3.7.5.2 3.7.5.3 Upper Tertiary Aquifers ................................................... 3-73 Lower Tertiary Aquifers................................................... 3-73 3.7.5.4 Upper Cretaceous Aquifers .............................................. 3-77 3.7.5.5 3.7.5.6 Lower Cretaceous Aquifers .............................................. 3-77 3.7.5.7 Paleozoic Aquifers ........................................................... 3-77 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow......................................... 3-78 3.7.5.8 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality .................................... 3-80 3.7.5.9 3.7.5.10 Groundwater Withdrawals in Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains ............................................. 3-81 3.7.6Northwest ................................................................................................... 3-82 3.7.6.1 Primary Northwest Aquifers ............................................ 3-82 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow......................................... 3-86 3.7.6.2 3.7.6.3 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality. ................................... 3-87 3.7.6.4 Groundwater Withdrawals in the Northwest. ................... 3-89
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
ii
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
3.8
3.7.7Other Western Interior ............................................................................... 3-91 3.7.7.1 Western Interior Plains Aquifer System........................... 3-91 3.7.7.2 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow......................................... 3-94 3.7.7.3 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality .................................... 3-94 Groundwater Withdrawals in Western Interior Plains ..... 3-94 3.7.7.4 Water Resources Planning ................................................................................. 3-97 3.8.0Background. ............................................................................................... 3-97 3.8.0.1 Water Supply Planning..................................................... 3-97 3.8.0.2 Water Supply Resources and Demand ............................. 3-97 3.8.0.3 Baseline Water Resource & Supply Conditions .............. 3-99 3.8.1Appalachian Basin ................................................................................... 3-100 3.8.1.1 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and Demand .......................................................................... 3-100 3.8.1.2 Groundwater ................................................................... 3-101 3.8.1.3 Surface Water ................................................................. 3-101 3.8.1.4 Domestic Self Supplied Water ....................................... 3-102 3.8.1.5 Baseline Water Quality Conditions ................................ 3-103 3.8.2Colorado Plateau ...................................................................................... 3-104 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and 3.8.2.1 Demand .......................................................................... 3-104 3.8.2.2 Groundwater ................................................................... 3-105 3.8.2.3 Surface Water ................................................................. 3-105 3.8.2.4 Domestic Self Supplied Water ....................................... 3-106 Baseline Water Quality Conditions ................................ 3-107 3.8.2.5 3.8.3Gulf Region .............................................................................................. 3-108 3.8.3.1 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and Demand .......................................................................... 3-108 3.8.3.2 Groundwater ................................................................... 3-109 Surface Water ................................................................. 3-109 3.8.3.3 3.8.3.4 Domestic Self Supplied Water ....................................... 3-109 Baseline Water Quality Conditions ................................ 3-110 3.8.3.5 3.8.4Illinois Basin ............................................................................................ 3-111 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and 3.8.4.1 Demand .......................................................................... 3-111 3.8.4.2 Groundwater ................................................................... 3-112 3.8.4.3 Surface Water ................................................................. 3-112 Domestic Self Supplied Water ....................................... 3-113 3.8.4.4 Baseline Water Quality Conditions ................................ 3-113 3.8.4.5 3.8.5Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains ............................................ 3-115 3.8.5.1 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and Demand .......................................................................... 3-115 3.8.5.2 Groundwater ................................................................... 3-116 Surface Water ................................................................. 3-116 3.8.5.3 3.8.5.4 Domestic Self Supplied Water ....................................... 3-117 3.8.5.5 Baseline Water Quality Conditions ................................ 3-118
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
iii
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
3.8.6Northwest ................................................................................................. 3-119 3.8.6.1 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and Demand .......................................................................... 3-119 3.8.6.2 Groundwater ................................................................... 3-120 Surface Water ................................................................. 3-120 3.8.6.3 3.8.6.4 Domestic Self Supplied Water ....................................... 3-121 Baseline Water Quality Conditions ................................ 3-121 3.8.6.5 3.8.7Other Western Interior ............................................................................. 3-123 3.8.7.1 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and Demand .......................................................................... 3-123 3.8.7.2 Groundwater ................................................................... 3-124 3.8.7.3 Surface Water ................................................................. 3-124 3.8.7.4 Domestic Self Supplied Water ....................................... 3-125 3.8.7.5 Baseline Water Quality Conditions ................................ 3-125
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 3.7-1 Table 3.7-2 Table 3.7-3 Table 3.7-4 Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties – Appalachian Basin .......... 3-32 Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties – Colorado Plateau ............ 3-47 Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties – Gulf Coast ....................... 3-57 Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties – Illinois Basin ................... 3-69
Table 3.7-5 Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties – Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains ........................................................................................................................ 3-75 Table 3.7-6 Table 3.7-7 Table 3.8-1 Table 3.8-2 Basin Table 3.8-3 Table 3.8-4 Table 3.8-5 Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties - Northwest ......................... 3-90 Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties – Other Western Interior .... 3-95 Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals (MGD) in the Appalachian Basin ....... .......................................................................................................................... 3-100 Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals by Category (MGD) in the Appalachian .......................................................................................................................... 3-102 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) ........ 3-102 Regional Health-based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations ........................... 3-103 Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals (MGD) in the Colorado Plateau 3-104
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
iv
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Table 3.8-6 Plateau Table 3.8-7 Table 3.8-8 Table 3.8-9 Table 3.8-10 Coast Basin Table 3.8-11 Table 3.8-12 Table 3.8-13 Table 3.8-14 Basin Table 3.8-15 Table 3.8-16
Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals by Category (MGD) in the Colorado .......................................................................................................................... 3-106 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) ........ 3-106 Regional Health-Based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations .......................... 3-107 Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals in the Gulf Coast Basin (MGD) . 3-108 Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals by Category (MGD) in the Gulf .............................................................................................................. 3-109 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) ..... .............................................................................................................. 3-110 Regional Health-based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations ............... 3-110 Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals in the Illinois Basin (MGD) .... .............................................................................................................. 3-111 Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals by Category (MGD) in the Illinois .............................................................................................................. 3-113 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) ..... .............................................................................................................. 3-113 Regional Health-based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations ............... 3-114
Table 3.8-17 Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals (MGD) in the Northern Rocky Mountains & Great Plains ....................................................................................................... 3-115 Table 3.8-18 Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals (MGD) in the Northern Rocky Mountains & Great Plains ....................................................................................................... 3-117 Table 3.8-19 Table 3.8-20 Table 3.8-21 Table 3.8-22 Northwest Basin Table 3.8-23 Table 3.8-24 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) ..... .............................................................................................................. 3-117 Regional Health-based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations ............... 3-118 Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals (MGD) in the Northwest Basin .............................................................................................................. 3-119 Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals by Category (MGD) in the .............................................................................................................. 3-121 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) ..... .............................................................................................................. 3-121 Regional Health-based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations ............... 3-122
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
v
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Table 3.8-25 Interior Basin
Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals (MGD) in the Other Western .............................................................................................................. 3-123
Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals by Category (MGD) in the Other Table 3.8-26 Western Interior Basin ............................................................................................................. 3-125 Table 3.8-27 Table 3.8-28 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) ..... .............................................................................................................. 3-125 Regional Health-based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations ............... 3-126
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 3.7-1 Appalachian Basin Aquifers .............................................................................. 3-25 Figure 3.7-2 Colorado Plateau Aquifers ................................................................................ 3-42 Figure 3.7-3 Gulf Region Aquifers.......................................................................................... 3-53 Figure 3.7-4 Illinois Basin Aquifers........................................................................................ 3-60 Figure 3.7-5 Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Aquifers ..................................... 3-72 Figure 3.7-6 Northwest Aquifers............................................................................................. 3-84 Figure 3.7-7 Other Western Interior Aquifers ........................................................................ 3-93 Figure 3.8-1 Total Water Usage by Category, Appalachian Basin, 2005 ............................ 3-101 Figure 3.8-2 Total Water Usage by Category, Colorado Plateau Basin, 2005.................... 3-105 Figure 3.8-3 Total Water Usage by Category, Gulf Coast Basin, 2005 ............................... 3-108 Figure 3.8-4 Total Water Usage by Category, Illinois Basin, 2005 ..................................... 3-112 Figure 3.8-5 Water Usage by Category, N. Rocky Mountains & Great Plains, 2005 .......... 3-116 Figure 3.8-6 Water Usage by Category, Northwest Basin, 2005 ......................................... 3-120 Figure 3.8-7 Water Usage by Category, Other Western Interior, 2005 ............................... 3-124
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
vi
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
3.5.0
INTRODUCTION MINERAL RESOURCES AND MINING GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY SOILS GEOMORPHOLOGY AND FLUVIAL PROCESSES TOPOGRAPHY
Introduction
Current topography throughout the seven coal bearing regions of the United States varies greatly. Even within those regions, relief can range from rolling hills and flatlands to steep and mountainous terrain. The process of extracting coal by surface mining methods affects topography by the removal of the overburden overlying the coal. This rock overlying the coal is fractured by drilling or blasting as it is removed. Once the rock is broken, referred to as “spoil,” it incorporates voids and air, and thus the volume of spoil removed during mining becomes greater than the volume of rock that was in place prior to mining. This is called the “swell factor.” Once the coal is recovered, the mine operator returns the spoil to the mined out area for reclamation, closely grading it so that is resembles the pre-mining topography, known as approximate original contour (AOC). Shown below is a graphic of the Material Flow Chart for the overburden:
3-1
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.5-1 Material Flow Chart
Depending on the topography and geology of the region, situations exist where the volume of spoil is greater than that needed to return the mined area to AOC. A mining operator in the Gulf Coast Region, for example, is able to place all waste material back into the mined pit because of the relatively flat terrain, the comparatively thick coal seams, and the much lower swell factor of the sandier material that makes up the Gulf Coast Region’s overburden. In contrast, in the Appalachian Region, coal seams are relatively thin compared to the thickness of the overburden and the mining ratio is higher; therefore, material cannot physically be placed back into the original location due to the swell factor and changed engineering characteristics of the material, which cannot be regraded to the original slope angle of the steeper Appalachian Mountains. In this case, the mine operator may place the excess material in a previously mined area, or in an excess spoil fill. In some cases where mining is conducted at lower mining ratios and the coal seam is thick, such as in the Powder River Basin, there is insufficient material to achieve AOC. A detailed description of the types of excess spoil fills is included in Section 3.1.7 and in Chapter 3K of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (MTM/VF DPEIS), EPA 0903-R-00013, EPA Region 3, June 2003, available at http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/eis.htm. Table 3.5-1 exhibits the overall trend of each region. The Appalachian Basin accounts for 99.4% of fills permitted in the United States between October 1, 2001 and June 30, 2005. Of these, 98% were located in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-2
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Table 3.5-1
Use of Fills Outside Mined Areas
Use of Fills outside the Mined Areas yes no no no no no no
Coal Bearing Region Appalachian Basin Colorado Plateau Gulf Coast Illinois Basin Northern Rocky Mountains Northwest Other Western Interior
Another instance where the current topography of a coal bearing region has been altered is the construction of coal waste disposal impoundments. In both surface and underground mining operations, coal may contain excessive clay, shale, other rock types, and other impurities, such as pyrite. This coal must be processed to remove impurities, since it is unsuitable for immediate use by the consumer. This coal waste is then disposed of in waste disposal areas. There are different types of waste disposal structures, some use the coarse refuse to construct an embankment that is used to retain the fine coal refuse (slurry), a second type of facility combines the coarse and fine refuse and places the material in a single monolithic fill, the third type of structure disposes only of the coarse refuse and places the fine refuse in a different location such as a mine void. Table 3.5-2 exhibits the overall trend of each region. Table 3.5-2 Use of Coal Waste Disposal Impoundments
Use of Coal Waste Disposal Impoundments Appalachian Basin yes Colorado Plateau no Gulf Coast no Illinois Basin yes Northern Rocky Mountains no Northwest no Other Western Interior no Coal Bearing Region
The purpose of this section is to describe the effects of current and accepted mining practices on topography and relay the different practices, both beneficial and detrimental, by which mining can affect the topography.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-3
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.5.1
Appalachian Basin
3.5.1.1 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region
Within the Appalachian Basin, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia have similar topographic features in that the areas with mineable coal reserves exhibit steep slopes (near 45°) and narrow valleys. Southern portion of the Appalachian range (Tennessee and Alabama) exhibit more rounded ridgelines and gentler slopes with wider valleys. Similarly the northern portion (Pennsylvania, Northern West Virginia, and Maryland) have a more rolling topography. Figure 3.5-2 Appalachian Basin Coal Reserves and Topography
Source: USGS National Coal Resource Assessment (http://energy.er.usgs.gov/coal_assessments/ncra/summary.html) and SRTM Image from CA Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (photojournal file #PIA03377). 3.5.1.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method The topography of the Appalachian Basin can be characterized by either being “steep slope” (slopes greater than 20°) or “non-steep slope.” Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia exhibit the “steep slope” topography; while Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland and Tennessee are “non-steep slope.” Historically, coal mining in the steep slope areas of the Appalachian Basin has produced numerous areas of backfilled benches and flat valley fill decks due to the excess spoil that cannot be put back onto the mining bench. These benches and valley fills augment the existing topography creating different drainage paths, varied ground cover and less steep slopes. The nonFor Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-4
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
steep slope coal mining areas exhibit more classic AOC (Approximate Original Contour) topographic features. Overall, the non-steep slope areas do not require excess spoil structures and the reclaimed mining areas mimic the original topography. The reclaimed areas do however create different drainage paths and varied ground cover. The varied topography of the Appalachian region lends itself to a wide range of mining methods. The mining method chosen would be based on several factors including topography, geology, coal seam depth, and coal seam thickness. Contour mining would be utilized when coal seam depth is excessive and there are right of entry constraints. Mountain-top removal or Area mining methods would be considered in both steep slope and median sloped areas if the coal seam depth is economical and there is sufficiently contiguous coal reserves to warrant substantial capital investment. Underground mining methods would be considered when surface mining is uneconomical due to excessive coal seam depth, if property (mineral) rights have issues, and there are sufficient contiguous coal reserves to warrant substantial capital investment. 3.5.1.3 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC 3.5.1.3.1 Post-Mining Restoration of Topography and AOC The Appalachian Basin is characterized by steeply sloping mountainous topography with slopes that can be steeper than 45°. SMCRA regulations require that all highwalls are eliminated and that spoil material will be placed on the mine bench in a configuration that adheres to AOC, but also will exhibit a static safety factor of 1.3. Because of the bulking factor of the overburden (swell), there is excess spoil material which must be placed in adjacent areas other than the mining bench. The configuration of the fill has traditionally created flat decks with the outslope, or front face of the fill, constricted at a slope adequate to obtain stability. These design approaches result in a structure that does not resemble the pre-mining topography. Until recently there were no specific guidelines for defining Approximate Original Contour and compliance was subjective. Kentucky had a policy that 80% of the spoil had to be placed on the mine area. Prior to the introduction of the Kentucky and West Virginia AOC policies there was a trend to elevate the fill decks and depress the backfill elevations thereby resulting in a gentle rolling topography that did not replicate the watershed boundaries, ridgeline elevation, original slopes or drainage patterns. 3.5.1.3.2 AOC Variances (including trends by operation type)
An AOC variance (in West Virginia) is defined as a waiver of the AOC requirements in situations where the reconstructed landform will serve an “equal or better economic of public use” than that which preceded mining. AOC variances are only considered on coal mining operations that employ area mining as their chosen mining method. Traditionally, the flat deck of a valley fill has not required an AOC variance. By definition “mountain-top removal” operations have a variance from AOC
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-5
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.5.1.3.3 3.5.1.3.3.1
Excess Spoil Disposal Methods Type and Design of Fills
There are two (2) primary types of fills currently utilized for storage of excess spoil: Conventional Valley Fill and Durable Rock Fill. The Conventional Valley Fill is constructed in lifts from the toe of the fill upwards. Excess spoil is deposited in uniform and compacted horizontal lifts or layers (four feet or less in thickness). Prior to placement of the spoil, the foundation (valley floor and sides where spoil will be placed) are prepared and rock underdrains installed to accommodate groundwater seepage and surface water infiltrations. Rock underdrains are constructed with durable rock that is free of acid or toxic forming material, coal, clay and any other non-durable material.
Durable Rock Fills are constructed by end-dumping spoil material in single or multiple lifts from the elevation or the crown of where the completed fill will occur. Dumping occurs from the central area of the hollow with the material transported downslope by gravity. At the completion of spoil placement, the face of the fill is terraced to an overall slope of a ration no greater than 2.4 horizontal to 1 vertical. Separate construction of an underdrain is unnecessary because during dumping the natural segregation of the spoil material forms a highly permeable zone of largesized durable rock at the lower one-third of the fill. 3.5.1.3.3.2 Old Mine Benches
Old Mine Benches are the first and preferred option for disposing of excess spoil in that there will be no “new” impacts to streams and/or watersheds. There are however several obstacles to placing excess spoil on old mine benches, such as divergence of the established surface drainage and degradation of the stability of the existing fill by the addition of excess spoil from an adjacent mining permit. With proper placement and compaction of spoil material the old mine benches could be restored to AOC and also minimize number and size of valley fills to accommodate the excess spoil material from mining operations 3.5.1.3.4 Trends in Number and Size of Fills
Information for trends and size of fills was only available for Kentucky.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-6
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.5-3 Kentucky Valley Fills Statistics
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-7
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.5.1.3.5
Fill Minimization and Optimization Procedures
Section 515(b)(3) of SMCRA requires all surface coal mining and reclamation operations to backfill, compact, and grade overburden and other spoil material to restore the approximate original contour (AOC). The AOC requirement compels mining companies to return spoil material to the mined-out area’s original configuration, thus limiting the amount of excess spoil placed in excess spoil structures (valley fills). In West Virginia there is an AOC+ Protocol (WVDEP Permit Handbook, Section 29) which outlines a systematic optimization procedure for maximizing the return of spoil material to the mined out area, which encourages fewer and smaller valley fills and an associated reduction in stream impacts and mitigation costs. See Chapter IV.I.4.a of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (MTM/VF DPEIS), EPA 09-03-R-00013, EPA Region 3, June 2003, available at http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/eis.htm for more information on West Virginia’s AOC+ policy. The AOC+ policy is limited, as it does not apply to contour mining or applications that are more than 50% contour. Kentucky also developed the “Fill Placement Optimization Process” (RAM 145), which was similarly designed to reduce the size and number of fills and to minimize stream impacts associated with mining. RAM #145 provides an objective process for achieving AOC, ensuring the stability of backfill, and minimizing excess spoil and the quantity of spoil that can be placed in disposal sites. The Kentucky process also optimizes fill locations in order to reduce terrestrial and aquatic impacts. The Kentucky policy applies to all surface mining. The key component of both the West Virginia and Kentucky policies is to define the quantity of material that can be placed in the mine area (Initial BackFill) in a prescriptive and reproducible manner. The policies also define how much higher the deck of a valley fill must be raised above the elevation of the lowest seam mined. Raising the fill deck has the result in allowing more material to be placed in the mined area (additional backfill). The policies also evaluate different fill locations to determine which location is most efficient in the terms of excess spoil per foot of stream impact. Neither policy addresses the configuration of the excess spoil disposal area and the fact they result in the traditional flat deck fills. In addition to the policies currently in place in Kentucky and West Virginia, non-traditional engineering practices can further reduce impacts by placing additional mine spoil on the decks of valley fills to decrease their overall environmental footprint. By backstacking additional mine spoil on the deck of valley fills and blending this fill with the backfilled mined out areas, a continuously terraced backfill area is created that eliminates flat decks. This terraced backfill may reduce the infiltration of drainage through the valley fills. In addition, the additional backfill on the valley fill decks reduces the size of the conventional valley fill which will enable the toe of the fill to be moved upstream, therefore reducing stream impacts. Landforming can be introduced into the design of excess spoil disposal areas in order to reduce infiltration and replicate pre mining topography and drainage.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-8
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
In addition, design changes to the conventional valley fill configuration have been used in pending permit applications to further restore original topography. This design change involves “canting” the face of the fill so that the face is not perpendicular to the adjacent stream. A canted valley fill is an excess spoil structure that is “canted” or skewed so that its benches are nonperpendicular to the primary stream. Canted fill designs are ideal in valleys where the main stem branches into a right and left fork. In the main stem, the benches are skewed so that a stream can be created on one abutment while the fill turns into the opposite branch. After turning, the fill rises traditionally into the "spoil branch" while the opposite branch remains largely undisturbed. The canted valley fill is designed to blend in with the natural topography. No plateau or deck can exist with the canted fill design since its primary aim is the re-creation of a valley with a flowing stream. 3.5.1.3.6 Fill Stability
The objective of most Federal regulatory requirements pertaining to excess spoil fills is to ensure long-term stability. The long-term stability of the fills is of great importance because the structures are not monitored or maintained by the mining industry or government following final bond release. Required steps to achieve stability include: A site investigation for each proposed excess spoil fill, specifically an investigation of the terrain and materials that will form the foundation of the fill. Important concerns include soil depth, the engineering strength of the soil or rock foundation materials, and the occurrence of seeps or springs. A stability analysis of the designed fill based on accurate values representing the engineering strengths (i.e. internal friction angle and cohesion) of the placed spoil and foundation material and (2) anticipated pore-water pressures in the fill mass. The analysis must demonstrate a static safety factor (SF) of 1.5 and dynamic SF of 1.1. Professional engineer’s certification is required during the construction of the fills to document that certain critical construction phases are being carried out according to the permit plan. These phases include: foundation preparation, underdrain construction, surface drain construction, grading, and revegetation. The long-term stability of excess spoil fills in steep-sloped Appalachia (parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia) was evaluated in preparation of the MTM/VF DPEIS. Among other tasks, the 2002 study included permit and field reviews of 128 excess spoil fills. The sample included all fills known to have experienced incidences of significant instability. For detailed information, please read Chapter III.K.1.c and Appendix H of the MTM/VF DPEIS, which is available at http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/eis.htm. 3.5.1.4 Coal Waste Disposal 3.5.1.4.1 Spoil Disposal Methods Coal waste disposal impoundments in the Appalachian Basin utilize the coarse refuse for construction of an embankment in a valley location adjacent to the coal preparation plant. This coarse refuse is placed and compacted within the embankment structure to insure long term static stability. The fine refuse which normally is in the form of slurry (approximately 30% solids) is pumped behind the embankment structure for settling, the water is then collected from the surface of the impoundment and re-used creating a zero discharge. A variation of the coarse
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-9
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
refuse embankment approach is to use the coarse refuse to construct a cell in which the fine refuse is then placed. This cell is then capped with more coarse refuse and the process repeated. These types of refuse cells require an adequate area of flat land, such as a previously mined area that was not reclaimed to AOC. Alternative combined refuse facilities are constrained in their application due to the physical characteristics of the refuse which in certain cases does not exhibit properties capable of handling. A combined refuse facility can dispose of the material in various configurations and locations including valley fills, side hill fills or on previously mined areas. If the fine coal refuse is disposed of separately, through approaches such as underground injection, then the coarse refuse can be disposed of in multiple locations and its configuration can be designed to replicate the prevailing regional topography, as long as stability is achieved. 3.5.1.4.2 Trends in Number and Size of Fills
According to the most current information available (http://www.coalimpoundment.org/), West Virginia and Kentucky have the majority of the existing coal waste disposal areas in the Appalachian Basin. A total of 148 impoundments (course and fine refuse) were located in West Virginia and Kentucky, out of the total of 188 impoundments identified in this document. Shown below is an analysis of the number and size of Coal Waste Disposal impoundments in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee (no information was available in Virginia, Maryland and Alabama) using maximum capacity of the impoundments as the benchmark parameter.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-10
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.5-4 Number and Size of Coal Waste Disposal Impoundments
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-11
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.5.2
Colorado Plateau
3.5.2.1 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region
The Colorado Plateau is a high elevation, largely flat region bounded on the east by the Rocky Mountains, on the North by the Uinta Mountains, and on the south by the Mogollon Rim. The most common elevation on the plateau is 5,500 to 6,000 feet AMSL (2008 OSM-EIS-34). All drainage from the Colorado Plateau region reaches the Colorado River and/or its tributaries. Figure 3.5-5 Colorado Basin Coal Reserves and Topography
Source: USGS National Coal Resource Assessment (http://energy.er.usgs.gov/coal_assessments/ncra/summary.html) and SRTM Image from CA Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Photojournal file #PIA03377). 3.5.2.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method In Utah and Colorado the dominant coal mining method is underground longwall mining. In Arizona and New Mexico surface mining methods, specifically area mining, are utilized. The depth of cover is the deciding factor in choosing the mining method. The overall topography of the region has been affected very little by coal mining due to the readily available storage area on the mining bench for all mine spoil, which renders excess spoil structures unnecessary.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-12
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.5.2.3 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC 3.5.2.3.1 Post-Mining Restoration of Topography and AOC In Arizona, the Peabody Kayenta Mine (the only active surface mine in the state) is mining multiple seams measuring 3 to 15 feet thick. The thickness of the coal being removed provides ample volume to accommodate the bulking factor (swell) of the overburden, so that all mine spoil can be placed on the mining bench. This in turn negates the need for excess spoil disposal structures. In New Mexico, the accepted surface mining method utilizes small excess spoil fills to accommodate the initial mining cut with the balance of the spoil material staying on bench for maintenance of AOC. (Jim O’Hara, New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, Mining and Minerals Division: phone interview, Oct 6, 2010) Colorado does not have any valley fills. During the early years of SMCRA, a small number of operations created box cut fills for the initial cut of excess spoil. In recent years, a number of mines incorporated smaller side-slope fills. (Tom Kaldenbach, Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety: phone interview, Oct 8, 2010) 3.5.2.3.2 AOC Variances (including trends by operation type)
No AOC variances were applied for in this region. 3.5.2.3.3 Coal Waste Disposal
Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado have no coal slurry impoundments (Jim O’Hara and Tom Kaldenbach).
3.5.3
Gulf Coast
3.5.3.1 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region
General topography is rolling with changes in vegetation from pine forests to near desert. Elevations in the coal mining areas range from 80 to 1350 feet AMSL with local relief approximately between 0-100 feet.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-13
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.5-6 Gulf Coast Coal Reserves and Topography
Source: USGS National Coal Resource Assessment (http://energy.er.usgs.gov/coal_assessments/ncra/summary.html) and SRTM Image from CA Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Photojournal file #PIA03377). 3.5.3.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method All coal reserves in this region are mined by surface mining methods. The overall topography of the region has been affected very little by the coal being mined due to the readily available storage area on the mining bench for all mine spoil, which renders excess spoil structures unnecessary. 3.5.3.3 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC 3.5.3.3.1 Post-Mining Restoration of Topography and AOC The mining in this region consists of mining multiple seams measuring 3 to 30 feet thick. The thickness of the coal being removed provides ample volume to accommodate the swell of the overburden, so that all mining spoil can be placed on the mining bench. This in turn negates the need for excess spoil disposal structures. 3.5.3.3.2 AOC Variances (including trends by operation type)
No AOC variances are needed because of the topography and coal seam thickness.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-14
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.5.3.4 Coal Waste Disposal All coal ranks, as described in section 3.1, in this region are shipped directly to the electric generation plant and are not processed, thus no coal waste disposal is necessary.
3.5.4
Illinois Basin
3.5.4.1 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region
The Illinois basin is a depression area that is bounded on all sides by geologic structural arches. Elevations in the coal mining areas range from 325 to 1000 MSL with the local relief between 3100 feet in elevation. Figure 3.5-7 Illinois Basin Coal Reserves and Topography.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-15
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES Source: USGS National Coal Resource Assessment (http://energy.er.usgs.gov/coal_assessments/ncra/summary.html) andSRTM Image from CA Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Photojournal file #PIA03377).
3.5.4.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method Because the topography of the region is essentially gently rolling hills, it has no bearing on the mining methods employed to recover the coal resource. The depth of cover is the deciding factor in choosing the mining method. In 2008, 65 % of the coal mined in this region was by underground methods with the remaining 35% extracted by surface mining methods. The overall topography of the region has been affected very little by the coal being mined due to the readily available storage area on the mining bench for all mine spoil, which renders excess spoil structures unnecessary. 3.5.4.3 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC 3.5.4.3.1 Post-Mining Restoration of Topography and AOC Post surface mining reclamation in this region exhibits near AOC configurations with the final topography being slightly higher in elevation than that of the original contour. This is due to the swell factor of the overburden and the relatively thin (2-5 ft.) coal thicknesses. Excess spoil is non-existent and operators regrade topography flat and reclaim the mining area. (Eric Langer, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation: phone interview Oct 6, 2010). The only non AOC portions of the project can be the excess spoil excavated at the beginning of a project in order to open up the mine area; this is sometimes referred to as the box cut. Additionally, some operations request a variance for the final cut to be reclaimed as an impoundment rather than backfilled to AOC. 3.5.4.3.2 AOC Variances (including trends by operation type)
No AOC variances are needed because of the topography. 3.5.4.4 Coal Waste Disposal Information gathered from the Illinois Land Reclamation Division revealed 46 coal slurry impoundments that are within 500 feet vertically or horizontally from underground works. No capacities for the impoundments were available. Information gathered from Indiana (Eric Langer) indicated that any refuse from coal processing is placed within the backfill on the mine bench. 3.5.4.4.1 Spoil Disposal Methods
The essentially flat surface topography (in Illinois) influences the design of the Coal Slurry Impoundments in that a dike is built around the entire perimeter to enclose all refuse and slurry material or existing pits are used (Eric Langer).
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-16
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.5.5
Northern Rocky Mountains
3.5.5.1 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region
The Northern Rocky Mountain region is divided into 3 distinct coal bearing areas: the Powder River Basin; the Green River Basin; and North Dakota Lignite. All three (3) areas are essentially plains but exhibit significantly different elevations. The Powder River Basin coal bearing area exhibits elevations from 2800 to 5400 MSL with local relief of approximately 0 to 200 feet. The Green River Basin exhibits elevations from 6500 to 8000 MSL with local relief of 0 to 300 feet. The North Dakota Lignite area exhibits elevations from 1800 to 3000 feet AMSL with local relief of 0 to 100 feet. Figure 3.5-8 Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Coal Reserves and Topography
Source: USGS National Coal Resource Assessment (http://energy.er.usgs.gov/coal_assessments/ncra/summary.html) and SRTM Image from CA Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Photojournal file #PIA03377). 3.5.5.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method Surface mining methods are utilized for approximately 99% of the coal mining in the Northern Rocky Mountain Region. The overall topography of the region has been affected very little by
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-17
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
the coal being mined due to the readily available storage area on the mining bench for all mine spoil, which renders excess spoil structures unnecessary. 3.5.5.3 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC 3.5.5.3.1 Post-Mining Restoration of Topography and AOC The mining in this region consists of mining multiple seams measuring 3 to 80 feet thick. The thickness of the coal being removed provides ample volume to accommodate the swell of the overburden, so that all mine spoil can be placed on the mining bench. This in turn negates the need for excess spoil disposal structures. There are instances where the mine spoil (including swell) is insufficient to create a regraded area that approximates original contours (AOC). In these instances all available mine spoil is utilized to eliminate existing highwalls and construct a regraded configuration of mine spoil with gentler slopes that will blend in with the surrounding undisturbed areas. 3.5.5.3.2 AOC Variances (including trends by operation type)
No AOC variances are needed because of the topography. 3.5.5.4 Coal Waste Disposal All coal ranks in this region are shipped directly to the electric generation plant and aren’t processed, therefore creating no refuse.
3.5.6
Northwest
3.5.6.1 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region
The Washington and Oregon coal regions make up one contiguous area that runs down the west coast of Washington and ends in the northwestern corner of Oregon. The general topography of this area is of rolling hills with a range in elevation from 300 to 2000 MSL with local relief of approximately 0 to 200 feet. There is currently no active mining in Washington and Oregon. The active Alaska coal bearing areas are near Healy in the mid-eastern part of the state. Topographically this area is semi-mountainous with a range of elevation of 1100 to 2500 feet AMSL with local relief of approximately 0-400 feet.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-18
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.5-9 Northwest Coal Fields and Topography (Images Not To Scale)
Source: USGS Central Energy Resources Science Center (http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/) and SRTM Image from CA Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Photojournal file #PIA03377) and USGS Central Energy Resources Science Center (USGS I-2585 http://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i2585/). 3.5.6.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method There are no active coal mines in either Washington or Oregon at the present time. The one active “complex” of three mines in Alaska is a multi-seam coal mine that utilizes surface mining methods with both mountain-top and contour mining operations. 3.5.6.3 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC 3.5.6.3.1 Post-Mining Restoration of Topography and AOC Post mining reclamation configurations on the active mines appear to adhere to AOC with one excess spoil fill adjacent to the mining areas (Russell Kirkham, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land & Water, Coal Regulatory Program: phone interview Oct 7, 2010). 3.5.6.3.2 AOC Variances (including trends by operation type)
No mining operation has applied for an AOC variance in this region. 3.5.6.4 Coal Waste Disposal Coal ranks in this region do not require processing and are shipped directly to electric generation plants. Because coal processing does not take place, coal waste is not created and no coal waste disposal is necessary.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-19
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.5.7
Other Western Interior
3.5.7.1 General Topographic Characteristics of the Region
The Other Western Interior coal bearing region includes Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. The general topography of the region is very flat plain with elevations ranging from 500 to 1200 MSL with very little local relief. Figure 3.5-10 Other Western Interior Coal Fields and Topography
Source: USGS Central Energy Resources Science Center (http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/) and SRTM Image from CA Institute of Technology NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Photojournal file #PIA03377) and USGS Central Energy Resources Science Center (USGS I-2585 http://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i2585/).
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-20
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.5.7.2 Topography and Choice of Mining Method Of the fourteen (14) total mines operating in 2009, only two (2) are underground and these are due to seam depth (EIA 2009 Annual Coal Report, 2010). The surface mines utilize area mining techniques due to the essentially flat topography. The overall topography of the region has been affected very little by the coal being mined due to the readily available storage area on the mining bench for all mine spoil, which renders excess spoil structures unnecessary. 3.5.7.3 Backfilling and Restoration of AOC 3.5.7.3.1 Post-Mining Restoration of Topography and AOC The post mining topography conforms to AOC in that it is restored to essentially flat land with very little local relief. In Kansas, most of the coal mining areas are reclaimed to resume their premining land use of prime farmlands (Fred Foshag, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Surface Mining Section: phone interview, Oct 6, 2010). 3.5.7.3.2 AOC Variances (including trends by operation type)
No mining operation has applied for an AOC variance in this region. 3.5.7.4 Coal Waste Disposal According to information gathered from the regulatory agencies, Arkansas and Oklahoma each have one (1) coal slurry impoundment (Jim Stephens, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Mining and Reclamation Division: phone interview Oct 5, 2010 and Darrell Shults, Oklahoma Department of Mines; phone interview Oct 6, 2010). The impoundment in east-central Oklahoma has a maximum capacity of approximately 589 acre – feet with a surface area of 28 acres. All of the coal slurry impoundments in Kansas were constructed pre-1977 and now are considered Abandoned Mine Lands.
3.6 3.7
SURFACE WATER (TO BE PROVIDED SEPARATELY) GROUNDWATER
Groundwater is among the Nation’s most important natural resources. It provides drinking water to urban and rural communities, supports irrigation and industry, sustains the flow of streams and rivers, and maintains riparian and wetland ecosystems. In many areas of the Nation, the future sustainability of ground-water resources is at risk from overuse and contamination. Because ground-water systems typically respond slowly to human actions, a long-term perspective is needed to manage this valuable resource. (U.S. Geological Survey Fact sheet 086-00, August 2000) Fresh groundwater withdrawals of 79.6 billion gallons per day in 2005 were about 5 percent less than in 2000. About 67 percent of fresh groundwater withdrawals in 2005 were for irrigation,
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-21
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
and 18 percent were for public supply. More than half of fresh groundwater withdrawals in the United States in 2005 occurred in six States. In California, Texas, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Idaho, most of the fresh groundwater withdrawals were for irrigation. (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 2005) All information included in this section of the EIS was extracted from the USGS Groundwater Atlas of the United States, http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/gwa.html, September 1, 2010, unless noted otherwise.
3.7.1
Appalachian Basin
The eastern boundary of the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province coincides with the Cumberland Front Escarpment in Kentucky and Tennessee. North of the escarpment, the province extends into the western parts of Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland and into western and northern Pennsylvania. The province extends southward into northeastern Alabama and northwestern Georgia for a short distance. The western boundary of the province approximately coincides with the contact between Devonian and Mississippian rocks in northeastern Kentucky and Ohio and with the contact between Mississippian and Pennsylvanian rocks farther south. 3.7.1.1 Primary Appalachian Basin Aquifers Aquifers in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province can be divided into two categories: the surficial aquifer system in unconsolidated deposits and the aquifers in consolidated rocks. The sand and gravel of the surficial aquifer system overlie the aquifers in consolidated rocks in much of northeastern Ohio and along the Ohio River and its tributaries. The aquifers in consolidated rocks consist of sedimentary bedrock ranging in age from Mississippian through Permian. Generally, these consolidated rocks dip toward the east and are present throughout the Appalachian Plateaus Province. In places, Pennsylvanian and older rocks are cut by thrust faults along which thick sections of older rocks have been displaced over younger strata. For example, a deep well drilled on the Pine Mountain Fault Block might penetrate the PennsylvanianDevonian sequence twice. Figure 3.7-1 illustrates the general extent of the various aquifer types. 3.7.1.1.1 Surficial Aquifer System
The surficial aquifer system consists of sand and gravel deposits of glacial and alluvial origin. Some of the glacial material was deposited directly by the ice, and some was deposited by meltwater. The coarse-grained glacial material that constitutes productive aquifers was deposited as alluvium, which filled bedrock valleys, and as kame deposits enclosed within or buried beneath glacial till. The alluvial material is along present-day streams and consists mostly of reworked glacial deposits. Aquifers consisting of sand and gravel beds in the glacial and alluvial deposits are locally present throughout eastern Ohio and in northeastern Kentucky along the Ohio River. Wells completed in the sand and gravel deposits, which are highly permeable, yield more water than wells completed in any of the other aquifers in the Appalachian Plateaus Province. As a result, ground-water development in Ohio has primarily focused on the coarsegrained alluvial and glacial deposits.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-22
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
The aquifers of the surficial aquifer system are of two types-alluvium in present-day stream valleys and glacial out-wash or valley-train deposits in buried bedrock valleys and kame deposits consisting of sand and gravel surrounded by or buried beneath poorly permeable glacial till. In many stream valleys, stratified glacial drift, consisting of sand, gravel, and clay, was deposited by meltwater as the glaciers retreated. Today, most of these valleys are occupied by perennial streams. Sand and gravel deposits in the valleys are the primary aquifer materials, and their locations are easy to predict because they are located at or near land surface. These deposits commonly range from 25 to 200 feet in thickness but may exceed 300 feet in large stream valleys. The kame deposits cover the northern Ohio part of the Appalachian Plateaus Province. 3.7.1.1.2 Pennsylvanian Aquifers
Pennsylvanian aquifers in the Appalachian Plateaus Province mostly consist of sandstone and limestone that are parts of repeating sequences of beds deposited during multiple sedimentary cycles. A complete, ideal cycle consists of the following sequence of beds, listed from bottom to top: underclay, coal, gray shale or black platy shale, freshwater limestone, and sandstone or silty shale. Not all the beds listed are present in each cycle. The sandstones and limestones are the most productive aquifers. Sandstone aquifers also are present in rocks of Permian age. In the following description, rocks of Pennsylvanian age are grouped into Upper Pennsylvanian aquifers and Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian aquifers; water-yielding rocks of Permian age are discussed with the Upper Pennsylvanian aquifers. Upper Pennsylvanian aquifers mostly are present in the Pennsylvanian Monongahela and Conemaugh Groups but also can include sandstones of the Dunkard Group of Pennsylvanian and Permian age. Strata containing these aquifers are present in southeastern Ohio and a small part of northeastern Kentucky. In southeastern Ohio, Upper Pennsylvanian rocks are primarily interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and shale with minor coal; they grade to shale and siltstone in northeastern Kentucky. The dominant lithology is shale, although some limestone beds are present in the Monongahela Group. Together, the Monongehela and the Conemaugh Groups average about 1,000 feet in thickness. These rocks thicken slightly toward the southeast and exceed 1,500 feet in thickness along the Ohio River in Belmont, Monroe, and Washington Counties, Ohio, where they include the Dunkard Group. Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian aquifers crop out throughout most of the Appalachian Plateaus Province and are the most widespread source of groundwater in the province. Shale with interbedded sandstone is the dominant lithology of Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian rocks in the northern part of the province, whereas sandstone is dominant in the south. Rocks composing the Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian aquifers include the Allegheny Formation and the Pottsville Group in Ohio, the Breathitt and the Lee Formations in Kentucky, and several equivalent formations in Tennessee. The Allegheny Formation and the Pottsville Group are primarily interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and shale but contain economically important beds of coal. An average of about 40 percent of the total thickness of the Pottsville Group is sandstone. In Kentucky, the Breathitt Formation is primarily inter-bedded sandstone, siltstone, and shale, whereas the Lee Formation is predominantly sandstone with some conglomerate. Beds of sandstone in the Breathitt Formation are typically from 30 to 120 feet thick and compose about 50 percent of the total thickness of the formation. About 80 percent of the total thickness of the
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-23
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Lee Formation consists of beds of sandstone and conglomerate. Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian rocks in Tennessee are predominately inter-bedded conglomerate and sandstone with some siltstone, shale, and coal beds. The primary water-yielding units are sandstone and conglomerate beds in the Crab Orchard Mountains Group; some conglomerate beds in this group locally are 200 feet thick, whereas sandstone beds in the group range from 100 to 300 feet thick and are locally conglomeratic.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-24
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.7-1 Appalachian Basin Aquifers
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-25
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-26
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.1.1.3
Mississippian Aquifers
Mississippian aquifers in the Appalachian Plateaus Province consist mostly of limestone and sandstone. Fractured chert of the Fort Payne Formation in Tennessee locally forms an aquifer. Shale is more abundant in Mississippian strata in Ohio and Kentucky than sandstone and limestone, whereas limestone is more prevalent in Tennessee. The Mississippian aquifers are exposed at land surface along and east of the western boundary of the Appalachian Plateaus Province in Ohio and northern Kentucky and locally in southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee along the Pine Mountain Thrust Fault. The Black Hand and the Berea Sandstones are the primary Mississippian aquifers in Ohio. Although the Berea is Devonian age in part, it is included in the Mississippian aquifers in this chapter. The thickness of the Black Hand locally exceeds 600 feet and g the Berea locally exceeds 100 feet. The Berea Sandstone also is a productive aquifer in northern Kentucky. The Ste. Genevieve and the St. Louis Members of the Slade Formation are productive aquifers in central and southern Kentucky, particularly in stream valleys where they are covered only by a thin layer of Pennsylvanian rocks and unconsolidated alluvial deposits. In Tennessee, the Monteagle, the St. Louis, the Warsaw, and the Newman Limestones, as well as the Fort Payne and the Grainger Formations, compose productive Mississippian aquifers. 3.7.1.2 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow. 3.7.1.2.1 Flow in Surficial Aquifer System Sand and gravel aquifers of the surficial aquifer system in Ohio are the most productive aquifers in the Appalachian Plateaus Province because the aquifers are highly permeable and easily recharged. Generally, these aquifers are either exposed at land surface or buried at shallow depths and thus are directly recharged by precipitation. In many places, the aquifers are hydraulically connected to streams, which provide recharge to the aquifers near places where wells withdrawing water from an aquifer have lowered the aquifer’s water level below the stream. Well yields in sand and gravel deposits commonly range from 100 to 500 gallons per minute but might exceed 2,000 gallons per minute. Aquifers consisting of fine sand and silt also are common in Ohio but generally are less permeable than aquifers consisting of coarse sand and gravel. Yields of wells completed in these finer grained aquifers commonly range from 25 to 50 gallons per minute. Generally, these aquifers are present in the fill of abandoned stream valleys and as lenses within layers of glacial till; therefore, the aquifers typically are not in direct hydraulic connection with streams. 3.7.1.2.2 Flow in Consolidated Rock Aquifers
Aquifers in consolidated rocks are an important source of groundwater, especially where wells penetrate fractures storing and transmitting water, where sandstone beds are hydraulically interconnected, near outcrop areas where recharge is direct and drilling depths are minimal, and in stream valleys where alluvial deposits overlying the consolidated rocks store recharge and subsequently slowly release water to the aquifers. The aquifers in consolidated rocks are directly recharged by precipitation where they are exposed at land surface. However, low-permeability layers of underclay beneath coal beds retard downward movement of the water and might create
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-27
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
perched water-table conditions above the main water table. The perched water discharges mainly to springs; the main water table discharges to streams, as well as springs. Water in deep artesian aquifers might be part of a regional flow system with a different flow direction than the shallower ground-water flow systems. Water in the consolidated-rock aquifers of the Appalachian Plateaus Province is primarily in fractures in sandstones and shales and in fractures or bedding planes enlarged by dissolution in limestones. Fractured coal beds also yield water in some places. Because these consolidated rocks have little or no intergranular permeability, fractures store and transmit most of the groundwater. The fractures generally are at shallow depths; most are a few tens to a few hundreds of feet below land surface. These fractures commonly form where erosion has removed overlying rocks, thus relieving vertical compressional stress and along the crest of anticlinal folds. The number of fractures and the width of individual fractures generally decrease as depth increases. Although fractures are present throughout the consolidated rocks of the Appalachian Plateaus, aquifer characteristics of the rocks and well yields are variable because the effective permeability of the rocks is dependent, for the most part, upon the number of fractures and how well the fractures are interconnected. Low intergranular permeability, coupled with the decrease in the size and number of fractures as depth increases, restricts the regional flow of water and creates conditions in which well yields generally are small. Sandstone, limestone, and conglomerate are the dominant water-yielding rocks composing Upper Pennsylvanian aquifers, but beds of fractured coal locally provide small supplies of water. Individual sandstone beds in Upper Pennsylvanian rocks generally are of limited areal extent and are isolated from other sandstone beds. The discontinuous occurrence and the generally finegrained texture of the unfractured rocks and sparse fracture openings combine to impede the flow of groundwater. Groundwater in these aquifers generally moves from recharge areas down gradient to discharge at streams, wells, and coal mines. Perched water tables above clay layers underlying coal beds in the upland areas give rise to springs along valley walls. Well yields from Upper Pennsylvanian aquifers commonly range between 1 and 20 gallons per minute. Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian rocks generally contain more sandstone and conglomerate than Upper Pennsylvanian rocks. Some of the Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian sandstone and conglomerate beds are regionally extensive and contain well-developed fracture systems. These fractures increase the overall yield of Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian aquifers compared to Upper Pennsylvanian aquifers. Perched water tables can occur above underclays in Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian aquifers but are less common than in Upper Pennsylvanian aquifers. In Kentucky and Tennessee, sandstone and conglomerate in Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian rocks tend to be thickly bedded or massive, and extend over large areas. Well yields from Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian aquifers only range from 1 to 25 gallons per minute in Ohio but range from 5 to 50 gallons per minute in Tennessee. Mississippian aquifers are mostly in limestones, except in Ohio where they are mostly in sandstones. Slightly acidic water that moves along fractures, bedding planes, and other primary openings in limestone dissolves part of the limestone and enlarges the original openings. The maximum reported yields of wells completed in these aquifers are highly variable; wells penetrating solution openings in the limestone have large yields. In Ohio, withdrawals from
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-28
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Mississippian aquifers can induce recharge from the directly overlying surficial aquifer system. In these areas, yields of wells completed in the Mississippian aquifers can be greater than elsewhere. Mississippian aquifers also are an important source of water in stream valleys where the overlying Pennsylvanian rocks are thin or absent. In stream valleys, recharge from alluvial valley fill tends to increase yields of wells completed in the underlying Mississippian aquifers. In Tennessee and Kentucky, springs can discharge from valley walls at the contact between Pennsylvanian and Mississippian rocks. Water percolates downward through the Pennsylvanian sandstones and then flows laterally along the contact with less-permeable Mississippian shale to emerge as springs along the valley walls. 3.7.1.3 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality The quality of groundwater from the aquifers in the Appalachian Plateaus Province generally is suitable, with minimal treatment for most uses. Chlorination is usually the only treatment required to make the water suitable for drinking. Locally, excessive concentrations of iron or sulfate may be present. Water from the surficial aquifer system and the aquifers in consolidated rocks may be locally contaminated by saltwater present at shallow depths or by human activities, such as the disposal of wastes or development of the coal, oil, and gas resources of the area. 3.7.1.3.1 Surficial Aquifer Groundwater Quality
Water from the surficial aquifer system in the Appalachian Plateaus Province in Ohio is predominantly a calcium bicarbonate type. The water generally has larger median concentrations of dissolved solids (413), chloride (31), and sulfate (76) and is harder (337) than water from the aquifers in consolidated rocks in the same area. Iron concentrations also tend to be larger in water from the surficial aquifer system and generally increase with depth. 3.7.1.3.2 Consolidated Rock Aquifer Groundwater Quality
The principal factors governing the chemical quality of groundwater in the aquifers in consolidated rocks are aquifer mineralogy and residence time (the amount of time the water has been in contact with the rocks). Water from sandstone aquifers containing few soluble minerals generally is soft, whereas hard water is obtained from limestone or shale containing more of the soluble minerals calcite and dolomite. Water in the deeper parts of the aquifers tends to be more mineralized than water from shallow depths because the deeply circulating water generally has followed longer flow paths and has been in contact with aquifer minerals for a longer period of time. Generally, water from wells located in recharge areas on ridges is less mineralized than elsewhere because of a shorter residence time in the aquifer. Water from wells located in valleys where discharge occurs is more mineralized than elsewhere. Water from areas where coal and black shale are close to the land surface tends to be acidic, whereas water from limestone tends to be alkaline. Chloride concentrations can be large in water from aquifers in consolidated rocks beneath valley bottoms because of deep circulation of the water to zones at or near the saltwater-freshwater interface and the subsequent rise of the mixed water along fractures. In addition, saltwater is relatively common at shallow depths in the vicinity of oil and gas fields because saltwater can migrate upward through improperly plugged, corroded, or abandoned oil and gas test wells. This type of contamination has been reported near Keaton in Johnson County, Ky.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-29
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Water from the Pennsylvanian and the Mississippian aquifers in Ohio generally is either a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type or a calcium sodium bicarbonate type. Thin shale beds are present between the sandstone and limestone aquifers in these rocks. The shales contain calcite and siderite (an iron carbonate mineral). These minerals, along with the calcite and minor dolomite in the limestone beds, are the source of the calcium and magnesium. In Kentucky, water from wells completed in the Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian aquifers commonly is a calcium sodium bicarbonate type. Water from the aquifers in Mississippian rocks in Kentucky is a slightly alkaline, calcium bicarbonate type. Excessive hardness and large concentrations of iron, chloride, and sulfate are locally present in water from the Pennsylvanian and the Mississippian aquifers. Saltwater, defined as water with a dissolved solids concentration of more than 1,000 milligrams per liter, generally is at depths greater than 300 feet below land surface in Kentucky. However, saltwater is at depths of less than 100 feet below land surface in valleys of large rivers and their principal tributaries. Locally, however, freshwater is reported to be present at great depths in areas in Kentucky adjacent to major faults; for example, chloride concentrations of only 2 milligrams per liter were present in water from two wells reported to be 1,500 feet deep in Bell County, Ky. Freshwater probably circulated to this depth in fractures or steeply dipping bedding planes associated with the Pine Mountain Thrust Fault. Sparse data indicate water from Pennsylvanian aquifers in Tennessee ranges from soft to hard, is a mixed type (no anion or cation is dominant), and contains small concentrations of dissolved solids. In contrast, water from Mississippian aquifers, which are mostly limestone, generally is a calcium bicarbonate type and is harder and more mineralized than water from Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian aquifers. Large concentrations of sulfate locally are present in water from wells completed in Mississippian rocks. In Pennsylvania and West Virginia, the undifferentiated sedimentary-rock aquifers consist principally of sandstone and fractured shale and coal. Most of the minerals composing these aquifers do not readily dissolve, and the water is a calcium sodium bicarbonate type. Dissolvedsolids concentrations are small and average only about 230 milligrams per liter. Hardness averages about 95 milligrams per liter, which is considered to be moderately hard. Water from predominately shale aquifers in Pennsylvania is reported to be hard, whereas that from predominately sandstone aquifers is reported to be soft. The median hydrogen ion concentration, which is measured in pH units, is 7.3. The median iron concentration is about 0.1 milligram per liter, but concentrations as large as 38 milligrams per liter have been reported. In coal-mining areas groundwater commonly includes water that has been in contact with mine workings or that has infiltrated and leached mine spoil piles. Water affected by coal-mining operations is usually acidic. Sulfur bearing minerals, such as pyrite, present in the coal are exposed to air in mines and spoil piles, and the oxidized sulfur combines with water to form sulfuric acid. The acid water commonly contains large concentrations of iron, manganese, sulfate, and dissolved solids and is highly colored. An exception is in the southern coal fields of West Virginia where the coal is low in sulfur, mine drainage tends to be alkaline, and water from working or abandoned mines is commonly used for public supply.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-30
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.1.4 Groundwater Withdrawals. Groundwater is an important source of freshwater in the Appalachian Plateaus Province. Ohio’s surficial aquifers are the major source of groundwater because they have the largest well yields of any aquifers in the Appalachian Plateaus Province and because many of Ohio's urban areas are located near major streams whose valleys are filled with sand and gravel deposits of the surficial aquifer system. Despite their generally lower yields, the aquifers in consolidated rocks are also important sources of water. Upper Pennsylvanian aquifers provide domestic supplies, and Mississippian aquifers provide domestic and small public supplies. Middle and Lower Pennsylvanian aquifers are used primarily for domestic, stock, and small public and industrial supplies throughout the Appalachian Plateaus Province. Table 3.7-1 shows the groundwater withdrawals within the Appalachian Basin by state, and broken down by water-use category.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-31
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Table 3.7-1
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 4.16 0.50 0.05 1.05 0.64 8.32 0.64 14.12 0.80 0.12 0.00 30.40
Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties – Appalachian Basin
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
STATE
COUNTY
AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL
Bibb Cullman Fayette Franklin Jackson Jefferson Marion Shelby Tuscaloosa Walker Winston ALABAMA TOTALS
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.13 0.21 0.42 0.33 0.91 0.39 0.92 0.52 0.84 0.54 0.44 5.65
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 1.18
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.03 1.11 0.00 0.28 0.04 0.09 0.02 1.94 0.38 0.23 0.00 4.12
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.03 1.13 0.09 0.33 0.32 0.03 0.17 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.22 2.60
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.13
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.17 0.04 0.00 0.39 0.07 1.93 0.04 3.90 0.00 0.10 0.06 6.70
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 4.52 2.99 0.58 2.38 1.98 11.18 1.79 20.54 2.96 1.14 0.72 50.78
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
STATE
COUNTY
KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY
Bell Breathitt Clay Elliott Floyd Harlan Jackson Johnson Knott
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.36
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.08 0.47 0.48 0.16 0.10 0.42 0.02 0.41 0.71
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.78
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.08 0.47 0.48 0.34 0.30 1.75 0.03 0.41 1.85
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-32
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY Knox Laurel Lawrence Leslie Letcher Magoffin Martin Morgan Owsley Perry Pike Whitley KENTUCKY TOTALS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.53 0.13 0.51 0.28 0.72 0.11 0.19 0.30 0.01 0.37 1.39 0.25 7.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.58 0.29 2.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.15 0.51 0.28 1.24 0.11 0.19 0.31 0.01 0.50 1.97 0.54 12.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
STATE
COUNTY
OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH
Belmont Carroll Columbiana Coshocton Harrison Jackson Jefferson Lawrence Mahoning Monroe Muskingum Noble Perry Stark Tuscarawas
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 6.30 0.98 2.92 5.95 0.23 0.62 3.11 3.91 0.19 1.27 8.48 0.00 0.17 29.78 18.82
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.25 1.62 3.36 1.21 0.44 0.45 0.60 0.15 0.58 0.16 0.93 0.26 0.70 6.72 2.03
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.08 0.18 6.90 0.00 0.00 4.28 1.16 0.00 1.78 1.64 0.00 0.00 6.57 7.38
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.34
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.06 0.08 0.18 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.21 0.22
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 3.09 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 9.70 2.76 6.70 16.16 0.72 1.09 10.27 5.24 0.97 3.52 11.40 0.28 0.90 44.37 28.79
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-33
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
OH Vinton OHIO TOTALS 0.20 82.93 0.59 20.05 0.00 29.97 0.00 1.77 0.01 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.11 0.00 6.59 0.80 143.67 0.00 0.00
STATE
COUNTY
PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA
Allegheny Armstrong Beaver Bedford Butler Cambria Cameron Centre Clarion Clearfield Columbia Dauphin Elk Fayette Greene Huntingdon Indiana Jefferson Lackawanna Luzerne Lycoming Northumberland Schuykill Somerset Tioga Venango Washington
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.45 0.43 1.78 0.78 1.25 1.97 0.00 16.83 0.34 1.76 2.59 3.13 1.38 1.25 0.00 0.83 0.40 0.78 0.76 3.87 1.60 0.20 3.31 2.40 1.55 0.77 0.07
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 1.40 0.21 1.99 4.73 0.57 0.11 1.53 1.11 0.50 1.36 2.46 0.15 1.32 0.61 1.18 2.21 1.23 2.08 2.77 2.43 0.66 1.47 1.47 1.53 0.96 1.91
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.69 0.06 4.57 0.42 0.04 0.01 0.00 1.73 0.02 0.00 1.09 8.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.09 1.16 0.36 0.56 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.19 0.18 0.08 0.03 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.17 0.25 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.14 0.01 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.19 0.08 0.03 0.10 0.15
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.06 0.34 0.22 1.19 0.47 0.27 0.00 0.92 0.37 0.18 0.38 0.59 0.06 0.44 0.26 0.85 0.54 0.25 0.11 0.13 0.70 0.73 0.49 1.40 1.10 0.19 0.70
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.23 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.09 0.01 0.00 0.01 2.51 0.00 0.39 0.00 1.21 4.15 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.30 0.01 18.73 0.54 0.01 0.00 0.00
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 2.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 1.39 2.41 6.86 4.41 6.62 2.87 0.11 29.23 1.89 2.47 5.60 17.23 1.61 3.83 0.87 4.14 7.44 4.51 3.11 7.06 6.44 2.28 27.46 5.89 4.73 2.02 2.83
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-34
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
PA Westmoreland PENNSYLVANIA TOTALS 0.53 51.01 2.42 40.37 0.04 19.68 0.19 2.77 0.59 13.53 0.18 2.66 0.05 36.11 0.00 3.18 4.00 169.31 0.00 0.00
STATE
COUNTY
TN TN TN TN
Anderson Campbell Claiborne Fentress TENNESSEE TOTALS
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.28 0.63 0.21 0.00 1.12
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.32 0.31 0.55 0.11 1.29
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.15
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.05 0.17 0.11 0.33
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.09 0.15 0.19 0.07 0.50
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.74 1.19 1.16 0.30 3.39
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
STATE
COUNTY
VA VA VA VA VA
Buchanan Dickenson Lee Russell Tazewell VIRGINIA TOTALS
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.91 0.07 1.33
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.56 0.68 0.96 1.22 0.88 4.30
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.08 0.07 0.57
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.17
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.07 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.02 0.34
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.63 0.70 1.99 2.30 1.10 6.72
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-35
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.02 1.84 0.06 0.67 2.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.41 3.11 0.06 2.84 2.28 0.11 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.68 0.42 0.21 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.33 0.85 0.15 0.49 0.64 1.01 0.51 1.10 0.90 0.72 0.65 0.24 0.35 0.44 0.60 1.12 0.39 0.65 1.05 0.51 0.72 0.20 0.57 0.82 0.36 0.78 Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.01 5.06 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.07 1.22 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.75 5.72 1.29 0.02 0.06 3.96 0.09 0.12 0.81 0.47 0.17 0.25 0.15 0.03 0.14 Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.02 0.57 0.00 0.15 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.54 0.04 0.44 0.53 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.32 0.24 0.25 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.25 0.12 0.43 Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.35 1.43 7.06 0.70 1.39 3.14 0.64 2.84 0.92 1.60 4.27 1.06 9.05 4.27 0.77 1.71 4.59 1.00 1.95 1.84 8.81 0.45 0.83 1.21 0.51 2.23 Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.05
STATE
COUNTY
WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV
Barbour Boone Brooke Clay Fayette Greenbrier Harrison Kanawha Lincoln Logan McDowell Marion Marshall Mason Mineral Mingo Monongalia Nicholas Preston Raleigh Randolph Tucker Upshur Wayne Webster Wyoming WEST VIRGINIA TOTALS
15.96
16.15
20.55
0.00
0.28
7.34
4.48
0.20
64.62
0.34
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-36
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.34 1.10 1.44 Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.80 1.72 2.52 Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.12 0.09 0.21 Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.01 0.02 0.03 Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.02 0.17 0.19 Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.01 0.03 0.04 Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.31 0.00 0.31 Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 1.61 3.13 4.74 Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00
STATE
COUNTY
MD MD
Allegany Garrett MARYLAND TOTALS
2005 Data downloaded from http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/, downloaded 16-Sep-2010 Information reported in USGS Circular 1344 (Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A., 2009, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 p.)
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-37
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.2
Colorado Plateau
The Colorado Plateaus aquifers underlie an area of approximately 110,000 square miles in western Colorado, northwestern New Mexico, northeastern Arizona, and eastern Utah. This area is approximately coincident with the Colorado Plateaus Physiographic Province. The distribution of aquifers in the Colorado Plateaus is controlled in part by the structural deformation and erosion that has occurred since deposition of the sediments composing the aquifers. Although the quantity and chemical quality of water in the Colorado Plateaus aquifers are extremely variable, much of the land in this sparsely populated region is underlain by rocks containing aquifers capable of yielding usable quantities of water of a quality suitable for most agricultural or domestic use. 3.7.2.1 Primary Colorado Plateau Aquifers In general, the aquifers in the Colorado Plateaus area are composed of permeable, moderately to well-consolidated sedimentary rocks. These rocks range in age from Permian to Tertiary and vary greatly in thickness, lithology, and hydraulic characteristics. The stratigraphic relations of the rocks are complicated in places, and the stratigraphic nomenclature consequently is diverse. Many water-yielding units have been identified in these rocks, and most publications pertaining to the hydrogeology of the area describe only a few of the units or pertain to only part of the Colorado Plateaus. The many water-yielding units in the area are generally grouped into four principal aquifers. The principal aquifers are the Uinta-Animas aquifer, the Mesaverde aquifer, the Dakota-Glen Canyon aquifer system, and the Coconino-De Chelly aquifer. Figure 3.7-2 illustrates the general extent of the Colorado Plateau Aquifer system. 3.7.2.1.1 Uinta-Animas Aquifer
The Uinta-Animas aquifer primarily is composed of Lower Tertiary rocks in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah, the Piceance Basin of northwestern Colorado, and the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico. Aquifers in each basin are present in different parts of the stratigraphic section. Some formations are considered to be an aquifer in more than one basin; however, some formations vary so much in their hydraulic characteristics that they are considered to be an aquifer in one basin and a confining unit in another. The Uinta-Animas aquifer in the Uinta Basin is present in water-yielding beds of sandstone, conglomerate, and siltstone of the Duchesne River and Uinta Formations, the Renegade Tongue of the Wasatch Formation, and the Douglas Creek Member of the Green River Formation. Water-yielding units in the Uinta-Animas aquifer in the Uinta Basin commonly are separated from each other and from the underlying Mesaverde aquifer by units of low permeability composed of claystone, shale, marlstone, or limestone. The Uinta-Animas aquifer in the Piceance Basin consists of the Uinta Formation and the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation. The Uinta Formation consists of silty sandstone, siltstone, and marlstone. Much of the intergranular space in these rocks has been filled by sodium and calcium bicarbonate cements, but fractures are numerous and produce substantial permeability. In the central part of the Piceance Basin, a saline zone in the marlstone contains the minerals nahcolite and halite, is not extensively fractured, and forms part of the
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-38
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
relatively impermeable lower confining unit of the aquifer. The lower part of the Green River Formation and the Wasatch Formation form most of the lower confining unit of the aquifer. The Uinta-Animas aquifer in the San Juan Basin consists of the San Jose Formation, the underlying Animas Formation and its lateral equivalent, the Nacimiento Formation, and the Ojo Alamo Sandstone. The San Jose Formation is the uppermost significant bedrock formation in the San Juan Basin and primarily consists of permeable, coarse, arkosic sandstone inter-layered with mudstone. The Animas and Nacimiento Formations and the Ojo Alamo Sandstone primarily consist of permeable conglomerate and medium to very coarse sandstone inter-layered with relatively impermeable shale and mudstone. The thickness of the Uinta-Animas aquifer generally increases toward the central part of each basin. In the Uinta Basin, for example, the part of the aquifer in the Duchesne River and Uinta Formations ranges in thickness from 0 feet at the southern margin of the aquifer to as much as 9,000 feet in the north-central part of the aquifer. The part of the aquifer in the Renegade Tongue and Douglas Creek Member in the Uinta Basin is about 500 feet thick. In the Piceance Basin, the Uinta-Animas aquifer is as much as 2,000 feet thick in the central part of the basin. In the northeastern part of the San Juan Basin, the maximum thickness of the Uinta-Animas aquifer is about 3,500 feet. 3.7.2.1.2 Mesaverde Aquifer
The Mesaverde aquifer comprises water-yielding units in the Upper Cretaceous Mesaverde Group, its equivalents, and some adjacent Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous formations. The Mesaverde aquifer is at or near land surface in extensive areas of the Colorado Plateaus and underlies the Uinta-Animas aquifer. The aquifer is of regional importance in the Piceance, Uinta, Kaiparowits, Black Mesa, and San Juan Basins and is of lesser importance in the Wasatch Plateau and High Plateaus areas. Some of the rocks forming the Mesaverde aquifer contain coal beds, some of which have been mined for at least a century. The hydrologic effects of mining have been of increasing concern in the areas underlain by the aquifer. The rocks composing the Mesaverde aquifer are conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, claystone, carbonaceous shale, limestone, and coal. Because these rocks primarily were deposited in environments that changed as sea level changed during the Late Cretaceous, lithology varies vertically and laterally, and inter-tonguing is common among the various formations and strata making up the aquifer. The altitude of the top of the Mesaverde aquifer has been mapped in parts of the Uinta, Piceance, and San Juan Basins. In the Uinta Basin, the altitude of the top of the aquifer ranges from about 10,000 feet below sea level in the north-central and deepest part of the basin to about 5,000 feet above sea level near the margins of the basin. In the Piceance Basin, the top of the aquifer ranges in altitude from about sea level in the central part of the basin to between 5,000 and 7,500 feet above sea level near the margins of the basin. In the San Juan Basin, the top of the aquifer is about 2,500 to 5,000 feet above sea level. In the Piceance and Uinta Basins, the thickness of the Mesaverde aquifer generally is between 2,000 and 4,000 feet. However, the thickness exceeds 7,000 feet locally in the eastern part of the Piceance Basin and is less than 1,000 feet near the
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-39
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
margins of the basins. In the San Juan Basin, the Mesaverde aquifer has a maximum thickness of about 4,500 feet in the southern part of the basin.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-40
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-41
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.7-2 Colorado Plateau Aquifers
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-42
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.2.1.3
Dakota-Glen Canyon Aquifer System
Water-yielding rocks ranging in age from late Cretaceous to Triassic underlie most of the Colorado Plateaus area. These rocks contain a series of aquifers and confining units, which are referred to as the Dakota-Glen Canyon aquifer system. In much of the area underlain by the aquifer system, the great depths to the aquifers or poor water quality make the aquifers unsuitable for development. However, in areas where an aquifer is near land surface, the aquifer may be an important source of water. Sandstone, conglomerate, and conglomeratic sandstone are the major water-yielding materials in this series of aquifers. The aquifers commonly also contain inter-bedded siltstone. Mudstone, claystone, siltstone, shale, and limestone generally form the confining units separating these aquifers. The Dakota-Glen Canyon aquifer system is underlain by the Chinle-Moenkopi confining unit. The Triassic Chinle and Moenkopi Formations are the two main formations composing the confining unit. In the western Uinta Basin, the Ankareh Formation is the equivalent of the Chinle Formation and forms the upper part of the confining unit. In the eastern end of the Four Corners Platform, the Triassic Dolores Formation composes the entire confining unit. In eastern Utah and northeastern Arizona, the Kaibab Limestone and Toroweap Formation of Permian age underlie the Moenkopi Formation and compose the lower part of the confining unit. The thickness of the Chinle-Moenkopi confining unit typically is 1,000 to 2,000 feet. Shale and sandy shale are the most prevalent rock types in the confining unit; limestone, claystone, mudstone, siltstone, and shaly sandstone also are common. Conglomerate, sandstone, and conglomeratic sandstone locally are present. In some parts of northern Arizona, sandstone in the lowermost member of the Chinle Formation or the Kaibab Limestone yields small amounts of water to wells. Elsewhere, the formations generally do not yield water. Overall, the Chinle-Moenkopi confining unit is an effective barrier to interaquifer ground-water flow and forms the base of the Dakota-Glen Canyon aquifer system. 3.7.2.1.4 Coconino-De Chelly Aquifer
Water-yielding rocks of Early Permian age underlie the southern part of the Colorado Plateaus. These rocks are referred to as the Coconino-De Chelly aquifer. The formations comprising the Coconino-De Chelly aquifer are the Coconino, De Chelly, and Glorieta Sandstones; the San Andres Limestone; and the Yeso and Cutler Formations. The Coconino and De Chelly Sandstones generally consist of well-sorted quartz sandstone with thin interbeds of siltstone, mudstone, and carbonates. The Glorieta Sandstone consists of well-sorted, well-cemented, fine to medium quartz sandstone. The San Andres Limestone consists of dolostone, limestone, and fine-grained clastic rocks. The carbonate rocks in the San Andres Limestone are characterized by solution openings, which substantially increase the hydraulic conductivity of the formation. The Yeso Formation consists of inter-bedded sandstone, siltstone, limestone, anhydrite, and gypsum and forms a low-permeability zone in the aquifer. The Cutler Formation consists of shale, siltstone, sandstone, arkose, and arkosic conglomerate.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-43
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
In most areas near the Grand Canyon, the Coconino Sandstone probably does not yield water because of the proximity to the canyon, where the formation has been truncated and drained. Fractures and associated solution openings in underlying rocks in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon allow water to discharge from the Coconino Sandstone. In much of the northern part of the Colorado Plateaus, rocks equivalent to those included in the aquifer are present, but the water in these rocks generally has dissolved-solids concentrations in excess of 10,000 milligrams per liter. The hydrogeology of the aquifer in this area is not described in this chapter because of the salinity of the water. 3.7.2.2 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow 3.7.2.2.1 Flow in Uinta-Animas Aquifer Groundwater recharge to the Uinta-Animas aquifer generally occurs in the areas of higher altitude along the margins of each basin. Groundwater is discharged mainly to streams, springs, and by transpiration from vegetation growing along stream valleys. 3.7.2.2.2 Flow in Mesaverde Aquifer
Water generally recharges the Mesaverde aquifer in upland areas receiving more precipitation than lower altitude areas. In the Piceance Basin, recharge occurs on the northern flanks of the West Elk Mountains, in the area near Grand Mesa, and along the Roan Plateau. Groundwater in the Uinta Basin is recharged near the basin margins. Interbasin flow from the Piceance Basin contributes water to the Uinta Basin. Ground-water flow directions in much of the west-central part of the Uinta Basin are poorly defined by available data. The available data in the San Juan Basin indicate recharge in the area of the Zuni Uplift, Chuska Mountains, and in northern Sandoval County, N. Mex. Groundwater discharges from the aquifer directly to streams, springs, and seeps, by upward movement through confining layers and into overlying aquifers, or by withdrawal from wells. The natural discharge areas generally are along streams and rivers, such as the Colorado River and the North Fork of the Gunnison River in the Piceance Basin; the Strawberry, Duchesne, and Green Rivers in the Uinta Basin; the Colorado River and its tributaries in the Kaiparowits Basin; and the San Juan River and the Chaco River and its tributaries in the San Juan Basin. 3.7.2.2.3 Flow in Dakota-Glen Canyon Aquifer
Water-level data for the Dakota aquifer are sparse, and as a result, the potentiometric surface can be defined only in the northeastern part of the aquifer. Major recharge areas indicated by the potentiometric surface are in the southeastern end of the Uncompahgre Uplift, the northern margin of the Uinta Basin, and the eastern side of the Piceance Basin. From these recharge areas, water in the Dakota aquifer flows toward discharge areas along the White, Colorado, and Gunnison Rivers. The potentiometric surface for the Glen Canyon aquifer has been defined for much of the northern part of the aquifer. Ground-water flow directions inferred from the potentiometric surface indicate major recharge areas along the western margins of the San Rafael Swell and Circle Cliffs Uplift, in the northern part of the Four Corners Platform, in the southeastern parts of
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-44
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
the Uncompahgre Uplift and Paradox Basin, at the eastern margin of the Piceance Basin, and at the northeastern margin of the Uinta Basin. Ground-water flow in the Glen Canyon aquifer is toward major discharge areas along the Green, Colorado, Dolores, and San Juan Rivers. 3.7.2.2.4 Flow in Coconino-De Chelly Aquifer
In the areas where the altitude of the potentiometric surface of the Coconino-De Chelly aquifer has been mapped, groundwater generally flows from the structural uplifts toward the major surface-water drainages. The aquifer is recharged in the Uncompahgre Uplift, Paradox Basin, San Rafael Swell, Circle Cliffs Uplift, Defiance Uplift, Zuni Uplift, and Mogollon Slope. Discharge mainly is to the Colorado and Green Rivers. Water in the Coconino-De Chelly aquifer near the Black Mesa Basin generally flows northwestward toward a discharge area near the mouth of the Little Colorado River. In the Grand Canyon, a series of springs issuing from the Mississippian Redwall Limestone discharges water derived in part from the Coconino-De Chelly aquifer. Fractures and solution channels in the Redwall Limestone and the rocks separating the Redwall Limestone from the Coconino Sandstone provide conduits for the groundwater. Similar processes affect the ground-water flow system elsewhere in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon. 3.7.2.3 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality 3.7.2.3.1 Uinta-Animas Aquifer Groundwater Quality Dissolved-solids concentrations in water in the Uinta-Animas aquifer in the Uinta Basin generally range from 500 to 3,000 milligrams per liter; concentrations can exceed 10,000 milligrams per liter in some of the deeper parts of the Uinta Formation. Smaller dissolved-solids concentrations are prevalent near recharge areas where the water usually is a calcium or magnesium bicarbonate type. Larger dissolved-solids concentrations are more common near discharge areas where the water generally is a sodium bicarbonate or sulfate type. Dissolvedsolids concentrations in water from the upper part of the aquifer in the Piceance Basin generally range from about 500 to more than 1,000 milligrams per liter. Concentrations in the lower part of the aquifer exceed 10,000 milligrams per liter where extensive fracturing of the saline zone underlying the aquifer has enabled upward movement of brine. The Uinta-Animas aquifer in the San Juan Basin contains fresh to moderately saline water. Dissolved-solids concentrations generally increase along the groundwater flow path from less than 1,000 milligrams per liter near recharge areas to about 4,000 milligrams per liter near the discharge area along the valley of the San Juan River. 3.7.2.3.2 Mesaverde Aquifer Groundwater Quality
The quality of the water in the Mesaverde aquifer is extremely variable. The dissolved-solids concentration of water from the aquifer is less than 1,000 milligrams per liter in many of the basin-margin areas but locally can be very large (more than 35,000 milligrams per liter in the central part of the Uinta Basin, and more than 10,000 milligrams per liter in the central part of the Piceance Basin). In general, areas of the aquifer t recharged by infiltration from precipitation or surface-water sources contain relatively fresh water. Sparse data indicate the dissolved-solids concentration ranges from about 1,000 to 4,000 milligrams per liter in parts of the Kaiparowits and San Juan Basins and the High and Wasatch Plateaus.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-45
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.2.3.3
Dakota-Glen Canyon Aquifer Groundwater Quality
In general, where the Glen Canyon aquifer is less than 2,000 feet below land surface, the dissolved-solids concentration of water in the aquifer is less than 1,000 milligrams per liter. However, in large areas where the aquifer is deeply buried, such as in parts of the Piceance and Uinta Basins, the dissolved-solids concentration exceeds 35,000 milligrams per liter. In an area in extreme southeastern Utah where oil and gas exploration and production are concentrated, water in the Glen Canyon aquifer is highly mineralized. Analysis of the water chemistry indicates the source of the mineralized water is likely deeper strata, which contain substantial deposits of evaporite minerals, particularly halite (rock salt). The water quality in the aquifer might have been caused by upward movement of saline water through unplugged or poorly plugged oil-test holes or leaking water-injection wells, which are used to dispose of saline water produced with oil and gas. 3.7.2.3.4 Coconino-De Chelly Aquifer Groundwater Quality
In Utah, the dissolved-solids concentration in water from the Coconino-De Chelly aquifer ranges from less than 1,000 milligrams per liter in the San Rafael Swell and Monument Uplift to 10,000 milligrams per liter along the margin of the Uinta Basin. In northeastern Arizona and westcentral New Mexico, the dissolved-solids concentration of water in the aquifer generally is less than 1,000 milligrams per liter. However, in an area near the southeastern margin of the Black Mesa Basin, the dissolved-solids concentration exceeds 25,000 milligrams per liter. The northwestward regional movement of groundwater near the Black Mesa Basin may have produced the elongated distribution of the more mineralized water in that area. 3.7.2.4 Groundwater Withdrawals in Colorado Plateau Power generation facilities use a tremendous amount of groundwater for coal transportation in slurry lines, consuming a valuable resource in this arid region. In 1968, Peabody Coal Company began strip-mining operations on land leased from the Navajo and Hopi Tribes on Black Mesa. Of the 11 to 13 million tons of coal extracted from the mine each year, an average of about 5 million tons are transported as slurry by a 273-mile-long pipeline from the coal-lease area west to the Mohave Generating Station. Transporting the coal in slurry form consumes, on average, about 3,800 acre-ft of water annually. The slurry water is provided through a network of eight wells tapping the confined parts of the D and N aquifers underlying Black Mesa. Most of the slurry water is pumped from the confined part of the N aquifer which also is the primary source of water for municipal users within the 5,400-square-mile Black Mesa area. (Power Generation on the Colorado Plateau) Table 3.7-2 shows the groundwater withdrawals within the Colorado Plateau by state, and broken down by water-use category.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-46
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Table 3.7-2
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 11.82 11.82
Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties – Colorado Plateau
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 14.60 14.60
STATE
COUNTY
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 1.27 1.27
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 12.71 12.71
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 7.10 7.10
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.49 0.49
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 6.32 6.32
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 4.26 4.26
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 58.57 58.57
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
AZ
Navajo ARIZONA TOTALS
STATE
COUNTY
CO CO CO CO CO CO
Delta Garfield Gunnison La Plata Montrose Rio Blanco COLORADO TOTALS
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.93 1.35 1.83 0.90 0.07 0.60 5.68
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 1.93 1.15 0.03 0.39 0.36 0.35 4.21
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.01 0.16 0.46 1.10 0.73 3.67 6.13
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.17 0.11 0.02 0.06 0.18 0.06 0.60
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.39 0.07 0.29 0.33 0.19 9.56 10.83
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 3.43 2.86 2.69 2.48 1.53 4.78 17.77
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 9.46 9.76
STATE
COUNTY
NM NM
McKinley San Juan NEW MEXICO
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 3.79 0.41 4.20
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 2.85 1.31 4.16
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.94 0.29 1.23
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.19 0.14 0.33
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 2.43 0.00 2.43
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 3.57 0.00 3.57
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 13.77 2.15 15.92
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-47
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
TOTALS
STATE
COUNTY
UT UT UT
Carbon Emery Sevier UTAH TOTALS
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 4.51 0.42 4.69 9.62
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.05 0.08 0.41 0.54
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.55 0.03 0.08 0.66
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.09 0.09 11.61 11.79
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.03 0.01 0.42 0.46
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 4.79 4.79
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.24 0.46 0.01 0.71
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 5.27 1.09 22.01 28.37
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.20
2005 Data downloaded from http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/, downloaded 16-Sep-2010 Information reported in USGS Circular 1344 (Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A., 2009, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 p.)
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-48
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.3
3.7.3.1.1
Gulf Coast
3.7.3.1 Primary Gulf Coast Aquifers Texas Coastal Uplands Aquifer System
The sediments composing the Texas coastal uplands aquifer system dip coastward beneath the coastal lowlands aquifer system. The Texas coastal uplands aquifer system underlies an area of about 48,000 square miles in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province and is in all or parts of 70 counties in Texas. The topography of the coastal uplands is more dissected and rolling than the coastal lowlands. The Texas coastal uplands aquifer system is subdivided into four aquifers and two confining units. These are, from shallowest to deepest, the upper Claiborne aquifer; the middle Claiborne confining unit; the middle Claiborne aquifer; the lower Claiborne confining unit; the lower Claiborne-upper Wilcox aquifer; and the middle Wilcox aquifer. The widespread, intensively pumped lower Claiborne-upper Wilcox aquifer is discussed herein to illustrate the aquifer system. Other aquifers in the system, though of lesser importance, show similar geometry, hydraulic characteristics, and water-quality trends. Figure 3.7-3 illustrates the general extent of the aquifer system in the Gulf Coast Region. 3.7.3.1.1.1 Lower Claiborne-Upper Wilcox Aquifer
Highly permeable sands containing large volumes of freshwater over an extensive area make the lower Claiborne-upper Wilcox aquifer the most important aquifer in the Texas coastal uplands aquifer system. 3.7.3.1.1.2 Mississippi Embayment Aquifer System
The Mississippi embayment aquifer system underlies most of the East and West Gulf Coastal Plains and the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Sections of the Coastal Plain Province. The Mississippi embayment aquifer system extends eastward from Arkansas to northwestern Mississippi and comprises six aquifers that crop out as an arcuate band of poorly consolidated to unconsolidated, bedded sand, silt and clay. In southern Mississippi and central Louisiana, an extensive, thick, clay confining unit, the Vicksburg-Jackson confining unit, separates the Mississippi embayment aquifer system from the overlying Oligocene and younger water-yielding strata of the coastal lowlands aquifer system. In the embayed part of the Gulf Coastal Plain of eastern Arkansas, northeastern Louisiana, and northwestern Mississippi, the southward-dipping strata of the Mississippi embayment aquifer system are hydraulically connected to the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer. The geologic formations and groups composing the Mississippi embayment aquifer system thicken greatly in southern Mississippi and Louisiana where large volumes of sediment were deposited by streams that emptied into the ancestral Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi embayment aquifer system ranges in thickness from a featheredge to more than 6,000 feet. The aquifer system thickens eastward and westward from its up-dip limits toward the axis of the Mississippi Embayment. The aquifer system is thickest in south-central Louisiana and southwestern
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-49
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Mississippi. Three of the system's six aquifers, the upper and the middle Claiborne and the lower Claiborne-upper Wilcox aquifers, become increasingly clayey and pinch out to the south. Some of the clayey confining units pinch out northward as they become increasingly sandy and more permeable. Of the six aquifers contained within the Mississippi embayment aquifer system, the Middle Claiborne aquifer is the most heavily used. 3.7.3.1.1.3 Middle Claiborne Aquifer
The middle Claiborne aquifer comprises mostly the Sparta Sand but also includes the Memphis Sand in the northern part of the Mississippi Embayment. The aquifer is thickest in a large area of east-central Louisiana and southwestern Mississippi, and in a smaller area of southeastern Arkansas. Although its thickness is greater than 1,000 feet in Louisiana and Mississippi, the aquifer largely contains water with more than 1,000 milligrams per liter dissolved solids. Such highly mineralized water is considered to be unsuitable for most purposes. In most areas where water in the middle Claiborne aquifer contains smaller concentrations of dissolved solids, the thickness of the aquifer generally ranges from 200 to 800 feet. Aquifers of the Mississippi embayment aquifer system consist of an inter-bedded sequence of poorly consolidated fluvial, deltaic, and marine deposits in which diagenesis or post-depositional geochemical processes have not greatly altered the original pattern of permeability. The hydraulic conductivity of the unconsolidated to poorly consolidated sediments composing the aquifers of the Mississippi embayment aquifer system does not appear to have been greatly reduced by cementation or compaction. 3.7.3.1.1.4 McNairy-Nacatoch Aquifer
The McNairy-Nacatoch aquifer comprises sand of Late Cretaceous age. The aquifer crops out or subcrops in parts of northern Mississippi and eastern and southwestern Arkansas and is the lowermost aquifer of the Mississippi embayment aquifer system. The McNairy-Nacatoch aquifer extends northward into southeastern Missouri, and northeastward into western Tennessee, southern Illinois, and southwestern Kentucky. The McNairy-Nacatoch aquifer consists of the Nacatoch Sand in Arkansas and the McNairy Sand in Mississippi. The McNairy-Nacatoch aquifer crops out as a narrow band extending northward from Mississippi into southern Illinois and as a second narrow band in southwestern Arkansas. The aquifer subcrops beneath the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer in northeastern Arkansas, southeastern Missouri, and southernmost Illinois. A confining unit separates the McNairy-Nacatoch aquifer from part of the underlying Southeastern Coastal Plain aquifer system in Mississippi, but the McNairy-Nacatoch aquifer directly overlies the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system along part of the western margin of the Coastal Plain of Arkansas and Missouri. The McNairy-Nacatoch aquifer consists of glauconitic, clayey sand deposited in a deltaic to prodeltaic environment in Arkansas and Mississippi. The aquifer is inter-bedded with and grades into chalk and clay as it extends southward. Deltaic deposits of sand, minor gravel,
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-50
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
and clay compose the aquifer where it extends northward into Tennessee, southeastern Missouri, and beyond.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-51
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-52
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.7-3 Gulf Region Aquifers
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-53
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-54
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.3.2 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow 3.7.3.2.1 Flow in Lower Claiborne-Upper Wilcox Aquifer The lower Claiborne-upper Wilcox aquifer is recharged by the infiltration of precipitation that falls on topographically high aquifer outcrop areas. Natural discharge occurs as evapotranspiration, loss of water to streams in outcrop areas, and as upward leakage in down-dip areas. Recharge and discharge are generally less than 1 inch per year in areas with little or no pumpage. Water in the aquifer is generally unconfined in aquifer outcrop areas where the specific yield for the sandy deposits might range between 10 and 30 percent. Water is confined in down-dip areas by the overlying lower Claiborne confining unit. 3.7.3.2.2 Flow in Middle Claiborne Aquifer
Within the middle Claiborne aquifer, large withdrawals have resulted in a long-term decline in water levels, which locally exceeds 100 feet, and have created cones of depression in several places. Declines in the potentiometric surface have helped to induce greater areal recharge and recharge from incised streams in outcrop areas. Groundwater removed from storage also has contributed to the long-term decline in water levels within the aquifer. Large withdrawal rates from the middle Claiborne aquifer have induced downward leakage of water into the middle Claiborne aquifer from the upper Claiborne and the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifers. 3.7.3.2.3 Flow in McNairy-Nacatoch Aquifer
Water enters the McNairy-Nacatoch aquifer as precipitation that falls directly on the aquifer where it crops out in eastern Mississippi and the northern part of the Mississippi Embayment. Aquifer water moves westward from topographically high interstream areas on the northern and eastern sides of the Mississippi Embayment to a large area of regional discharge on the western side of the embayment. The discharge zone, which is identified by a low area of the potentiometric surface, encompasses some of the places where the McNairy-Nacatoch aquifer directly underlies the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer in northeastern Arkansas and southeastern Missouri. The discharge zone also includes a large area where the McNairyNacatoch aquifer is confined by clay and shale of the Midway confining unit. Discharge of ground-water from the McNairy-Nacatoch aquifer does not coincide with any surface drainage features, but does correspond closely to an area subject to large ground-water withdrawals. 3.7.3.3 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality 3.7.3.3.1 Lower Claiborne-Upper Wilcox Aquifer Groundwater Quality In extensive areas, the concentration of dissolved solids in water from the lower Claiborne-upper Wilcox aquifer is less than 500 milligrams per liter. The water is fresh (dissolved-solids concentrations less than 1,000 milligrams per liter) in nearly the entire eastern one-half of the aquifer and in most of the western one-half. Concentrations exceed 1,000 milligrams per liter in the central and western down-dip areas.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-55
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.3.3.2
Middle Claiborne Aquifer Groundwater Quality
The middle Claiborne aquifer in Segment 5 contains water with less than 500 milligrams per liter dissolved solids over about one-half of its extent. However, the dissolved-solids concentration increases to more than 1,000 milligrams per liter where the aquifer underlies the junction of the Mississippi and the Ouachita Rivers, an area of natural ground-water discharge. The aquifer contains moderately saline water (3,000-10,000 milligrams per liter dissolved solids) in mid-dip areas, but contains brine in the deep surface. 3.7.3.3.3 McNairy-Nacatoch Aquifer Groundwater Quality
The concentration of dissolved solids in water from the McNairy-Nacatoch aquifer increases in a southwesterly direction. Dissolved-solids concentrations are generally lowest in areas where the aquifer crops out and where it is buried only to shallow depths. In northeastern Arkansas, dissolved-solids concentrations generally are greater than 500 milligrams per liter. Concentrations of more than 1,000 milligrams per liter are present in a small area in southeastern Missouri apparently as the result of upward leakage of water from the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system. The McNairy-Nacatoch aquifer generally contains more than 3,000 milligrams per liter dissolved-solids concentration in its deepest parts. The aquifer is dominated by sodium bicarbonate water where it contains water with less than 2,000 milligrams per liter dissolved solids and by sodium chloride water where it contains water with more than 2,000 milligrams per liter dissolved solids. 3.7.3.4 Groundwater Withdrawals in Gulf Coast The Texas coastal uplands aquifer system furnishes large quantities of water for agricultural, public, and industrial needs. Water withdrawn for public supply generally contains dissolvedsolids concentrations of less than 1,000 milligrams per liter. Slightly saline water with dissolvedsolids concentrations ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 milligrams per liter can be used for many agricultural and industrial purposes. Fresh groundwater withdrawals from the Mississippi embayment aquifer system are estimated to be 946 million gallons per day. (USGS Circular 1323, Groundwater Availability in the US) More water is withdrawn from the middle Claiborne aquifer than from any other aquifer of the Mississippi embayment aquifer system. The middle Claiborne aquifer is capable of yielding water to properly constructed wells at a rate ranging from 100 to 300 gallons per minute in Louisiana and Mississippi. Wells screened in the middle Claiborne aquifer in Arkansas are reported to yield from 300 to 1,000 gallons per minute. Yields of as much as 2,000 gallons per minute are obtained in northernmost Mississippi and eastern Arkansas where the middle Claiborne aquifer merges with the lower Claiborne-upper Wilcox aquifer and is known locally as the Memphis aquifer. Table 3.7-3 shows the groundwater withdrawals for the Gulf Coast Region by state, and further broken down by water-use category.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-56
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Table 3.7-3
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 1.34 0.72 2.06
Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties – Gulf Coast
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00
STATE
COUNTY
LA LA
De Soto Red River LOUISIANA TOTALS
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.62 0.22 0.84
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.10 0.00 0.10
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.02 0.73 0.75
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.18 0.05 0.23
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.03 0.00 0.03
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 2.33 0.16 2.49
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 3.53 1.75 5.28
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 1.09 0.13 1.22
STATE
COUNTY
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.75 0.75
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.17 0.17
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 3.82 3.82
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.06 0.06
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.01 0.01
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.55 0.55
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 5.36 5.36
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
MS
Choctaw MISSISSIPPI TOTALS
STATE
COUNTY
TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX
Atascosa Freestone Harrison Hopkins Lee Leon Panola Robertson
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 4.26 2.14 1.94 1.64 2.64 2.04 1.62 2.58
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 2.47 0.53 0.00 1.79 0.51 1.14 1.62 0.88
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.47 0.00 0.02
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 21.05 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.52 0.27 0.00 17.14
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 1.22 0.15 0.08 2.98 0.47 0.09 2.28 0.51
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.67 2.64 1.10 0.85 0.23 0.59 3.83 0.39
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 5.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.09
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 34.88 2.82 2.24 6.47 4.16 4.01 5.90 25.22
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.57 2.64 1.10 0.79 0.23 0.59 3.45 0.39
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-57
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
TX TX Rusk Titus TEXAS TOTALS 4.61 0.02 23.49 0.58 1.66 11.18 0.01 0.09 0.72 0.08 0.00 39.17 0.32 0.36 8.46 0.00 0.00 0.02 10.02 2.96 23.28 0.00 0.00 9.85 5.76 2.13 93.59 9.86 2.96 22.58
2005 Data downloaded from http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/, downloaded 16-Sep-2010 Information reported in USGS Circular 1344 (Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A., 2009, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 p.)
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-58
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.4
Illinois Basin
The aquifers of the Central Lowland Physiographic Province consist of unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits of Quaternary age and consolidated sandstone, limestone, and dolomite of Paleozoic age. The principal aquifers in Paleozoic rocks primarily are sandstone of Pennsylvanian age, limestone and sandstone of Mississippian age, dolomite and limestone of Devonian and Silurian age, and sandstone and dolomite of Ordovician and Cambrian age. The Central Lowland Province is characterized by a low-relief surface formed by glacial till, outwash plains, and glacial-lake plains. Long, low, arcuate ridges, which were formed by recessional moraines and generally are concave to the north, are common features on these plains. The glacial deposits composing the ridges and plains have completely buried the preglacial topographic features of most of the segment. The depth to which freshwater circulates in the consolidated rocks depends on a number of factors, including the permeability of the aquifers in the consolidated rocks, and on the number, thickness, and permeability of confining units present in the consolidated rocks and in the overlying unconsolidated deposits. The freshwater flow system is deep in northern Illinois where the aquifers in consolidated rocks of Ordovician and Cambrian age transmit water from aquifer outcrop and shallow subcrop areas in central Wisconsin to depths of about 2,000 feet in the Chicago, Ill., area. A freshwater flow system also exists in the aquifers in dolomite and limestone of Devonian and Silurian age in the eastern part of the segment in Indiana and Ohio. In contrast, the aquifers in limestone and sandstone of Mississippian age are saturated with saltwater in Illinois and Indiana, except in areas where these rocks crop out. The aquifers in Mississippian rocks in Illinois and Indiana mostly are overlain by Pennsylvanian rocks inter-layered shale, siltstone, sandstone, limestone, and coal. The inter-layered shale and siltstone form confining units impeding the downward movement of the freshwater and the flushing of saltwater from the underlying aquifers in Mississippian rocks. The unconsolidated Quaternary deposits are saturated with freshwater throughout the segment. The water moves through the void spaces between the mineral grains and rock particles constituting the deposits. The upper part of the consolidated Paleozoic rocks underlying the Quaternary deposits also is saturated with freshwater, which moves through primary pore spaces in some of the sandstone units and secondary openings, such as fractures and bedding planes, in all the consolidated rocks. In limestone and dolomite, these secondary openings are often enlarged by the dissolution of the carbonate rocks. As a consequence of this enlargement, the limestone and dolomite form the most productive aquifers in consolidated rocks in the segment. Figure 3.7-4 illustrates the general extent of the aquifers making up the Illinois Basin aquifer system.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-59
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.7-4 Illinois Basin Aquifers
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-60
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.4.1 Primary Illinois Basin Aquifers 3.7.4.1.1 Surficial Aquifer System Some of the most productive aquifers in the Central Lowland Province consist of Quaternary sand and gravel deposits. These deposits, which are collectively called the surficial aquifer system, supply more than 50 percent of the fresh groundwater withdrawn. The different combinations of clay, silt, sand, and gravel composing the glacial material were deposited during at least three stages of advance and retreat of the ice. In places where they were directly emplaced by the ice, these deposits, called till, are poorly sorted mixtures of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders and generally are not productive aquifers. In other places, sediments deposited by glacial meltwater consist of coarse sand and gravel that are productive aquifers. The thickness of the deposits ranges from less than 100 feet in most of the segment to between 400 and 600 feet in buried bedrock valleys. The thickest deposits are mostly in west-central Ohio, northeastern Indiana, and northern and central Illinois. 3.7.4.1.2 Pennsylvanian Aquifers
Sandstone and limestone beds of the Pennsylvanian age, which are aquifers in the Central Lowland Province, lie beneath the surficial aquifer system in parts of Illinois and Indiana. The Pennsylvanian sandstones and limestones are parts of repeating sequences of beds deposited during multiple sedimentary cycles. An ideal complete cycle consists of the following sequence of beds, listed from bottom to top: basal sandstone, sandy shale, limestone, underclay, coal, gray shale, limestone, black platy shale, limestone, and silty gray shale containing iron concretions. Sheet-like and channel-fill sandstones at the bases of the sedimentary sequences are some of the most productive aquifers in Pennsylvanian rocks. However, a zone of fractures, joints, and bedding plains commonly occurs in the upper parts of exposed Pennsylvanian rocks, and these openings yield water to wells regardless of rock type. Small to moderate supplies of water are obtained from the Pennsylvanian aquifers in places where little water is available from the overlying Quaternary deposits of the surficial aquifer system. These conditions might exist where the Quaternary deposits are thin or fine grained or both. The Pennsylvanian aquifers commonly are used for water supplies in areas where they are buried beneath less than 100 feet of Quaternary deposits. 3.7.4.1.3 Mississippian Aquifers
Mississippian rocks that are aquifers in the Central Low-land Province lie beneath Quaternary deposits and Pennsylvanian rocks in parts of western Illinois, eastern Illinois, and southwestern Indiana. Generally, thick-bedded limestones and sandstones constitute the aquifers. Although small amounts of water can be obtained from nearly all the Mississippian rocks, including shale, the most productive water-yielding rocks are limestones and sandstones. Limestone is the dominant rock type in the lower one-half of the Mississippian section, whereas sandstone is more abundant in the upper one-half. Some of the limestone formations in the lower part of the Mississippian rocks in western Illinois change to shale in the eastern part of the area. Thus, almost all the Mississippian rocks are considered to be aquifers in western Illinois, whereas only
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-61
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
the middle and upper parts of Mississippian rocks are considered to be aquifers in eastern Illinois and southwestern Indiana. 3.7.4.1.4 Silurian-Devonian Aquifer
Dolomites and limestones of Silurian and Devonian age constitute one of the principal consolidated-rock aquifers throughout a large area in the Central Lowland Province. The Silurian-Devonian aquifer lies beneath Upper Devonian shales, Mississippian rocks, or Quaternary deposits and is present from central Ohio across Indiana into northern and western Illinois. The Silurian-Devonian aquifer has been referred to by a number of different names. It is known as the carbonate aquifer in Ohio, the Silurian-Devonian aquifers in Indiana, and the upper part of the shallow dolomite aquifer in Illinois. In northern Illinois, freshwater is present at depths greater than 1,000 feet below sea level, which is much deeper than the bottom of the Silurian-Devonian aquifer. However, to the south and east, the Silurian-Devonian aquifer generally contains freshwater where the aquifer is between land surface and about 500 feet below land surface. Most of the freshwater part of the SilurianDevonian aquifer is directly overlain by unconsolidated deposits of Quaternary age that compose the surficial aquifer system. The thickness of the Quaternary deposits and, consequently, the depth to the top of the Silurian-Devonian aquifer, range from less than 100 feet to more than 400 feet below land surface in the area. The Silurian-Devonian aquifer is most commonly used for water supply where it is overlain by less than 200 feet of Quaternary deposits. 3.7.4.1.5 Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer System
The aquifers in rocks of Cambrian and Ordovician age and the confining units that separate and overlie them are collectively known as the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system. The CambrianOrdovician aquifer system is complex and multilayered; major aquifers are separated by leaky confining units. Large withdrawals in the Chicago, Ill., and Milwaukee, Wis., areas have created deep, extensive cones of depression in the potentiometric surface of the aquifer system. Parts of three principal aquifers, which consist of consolidated rocks of Ordovician and Cambrian age, are present in northern Illinois-the St. Peter-Prairie du Chien-Jordan, the IrontonGalesville, and the Mount Simon. These aquifers extend into northern Illinois from Wisconsin and Iowa, and are mostly located out of the coal producing areas of the Illinois Basin. 3.7.4.2 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow. 3.7.4.2.1 Flow in Surficial Aquifers Although groundwater in the surficial aquifer system is under water-table, or unconfined, conditions in many places, artesian, or confined, conditions exist in places where inter-bedded clay or silt compose local confining units. Together, water-table and artesian water levels compose the potentiometric surface of an aquifer. The difference in the altitude of the potentiometric surface over a unit horizontal distance is called the hydraulic gradient. Groundwater moves through an aquifer in a direction generally parallel to the hydraulic gradient.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-62
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
The movement generally is perpendicular to the lines of equal altitude of the potentiometric surface. Most of the water moves through the aquifer along short flow paths toward local streams where it is discharged to the streams as base flow. Some of the water follows longer flow paths in the deeper parts of the aquifer system and discharges to larger streams. In parts of central and southern Ohio, the buried Teays Valley is filled with laminated clay and silt that are not aquifer material. Further to the north and west, in the upper part of the Wabash River Basin in Indiana, the valley is filled partly with sand and gravel. In western Indiana and central Illinois, sand and gravel aquifers have been mapped in and along the buried TeaysMahomet Valley. These coarse, permeable materials allow water to move through the sediments with little resistance to flow. The potential yield of wells completed in the surficial aquifer system in the Central Lowland Province ranges from less than 100 to more than 500 gallons per minute. In general, the largest sustained potential yields are obtained from wells located in river valleys where the aquifers and the river are hydraulically connected. Under such conditions, large withdrawals from a well near a river will cause the water level in the well to decline until it is below river level. The gradient created will induce water to move from the river into the aquifer and toward the well. Under these conditions, well yields of 2,000 gallons per minute are common, and maximum yields might exceed 4,000 gallons per minute. In some places, recharge ponds have been constructed to capture and impound surface water. The impounded water percolates downward to recharge the surficial aquifer system and subsequently moves into nearby pumping wells. 3.7.4.2.2 Flow in Pennsylvanian Aquifers
Most of the water in the Pennsylvanian aquifers is under confined conditions because the aquifers commonly are inter-bedded with siltstone, shale, and clay and are overlain by Quaternary deposits containing clay beds. The water primarily moves through secondary openings, such as fractures and joints or local solution channels in limestones. Recharge to the Pennsylvanian aquifers takes place through the overlying Quaternary deposits. The large volumes of water stored in the surficial aquifer system serve to replenish groundwater withdrawn from wells completed in the Pennsylvanian aquifers. In some places, such as river valleys, water levels in the Pennsylvanian aquifers are higher than those in the overlying surficial aquifer system, and groundwater moves from the Pennsylvanian aquifers to the surficial aquifer system. The thickness of Pennsylvanian rocks saturated with freshwater ranges from less than 100 feet to more than 300 feet. The thickest parts of the freshwater-yielding Pennsylvanian rocks are in central and southeastern Illinois and southwestern Indiana. Nearly the entire thickness of Pennsylvanian rocks contains freshwater in the north-central part of Illinois. Toward the south, the depth to saltwater decreases, and the Pennsylvanian rocks thicken. Near the southern limit of the area, only the upper 10 percent of the Pennsylvanian rocks contains freshwater. 3.7.4.2.3 Flow in Mississippian Aquifers
Freshwater circulates to depths greater than 1,000 feet below sea level in west-central Illinois; consequently, all the Mississippian rocks directly overlain by Quaternary deposits and some
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-63
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
directly overlain by Pennsylvanian rocks contain freshwater in this area. However, in southern Illinois and in areas toward the central part of the Illinois Basin, Mississippian rocks are at greater depths and are overlain by a thick, continuous sequence of Pennsylvanian rocks impeding deep freshwater circulation. In addition, some of the Mississippian limestones grade eastward to less-permeable shale. Down-dip toward the central part of the Illinois Basin, initially part and eventually all the Mississippian rocks contain water with dissolved-solids concentrations of greater than 1,000 milligrams per liter. The distribution of wells obtaining water from the Mississippian aquifers is similar to wells completed in the Pennsylvanian aquifers. The Mississippian aquifers generally are used for water supply where they are less than 200 feet below land surface and where more water can be obtained from them than from the overlying surficial aquifer system. Water in the Mississippian aquifers primarily moves through openings such as bedding planes, fractures, and solution channels. Recharge to the Mississippian aquifers occurs primarily by water percolating downward through the overlying Quaternary deposits and Pennsylvanian rocks. 3.7.4.2.4 Flow in Silurian-Devonian Aquifer
Groundwater generally is under confined conditions in the Silurian-Devonian aquifer. The water moves through fractures, bedding planes, and solution cavities in the dolomites and limestones. The Silurian-Devonian aquifer is recharged from the overlying surficial aquifer system in areas where water levels in the surficial aquifer system are higher than those in the Silurian-Devonian aquifer. Locally, where the water-level differences are reversed, water discharges to the surficial aquifer system from the Silurian-Devonian aquifer. The water stored in the surficial aquifer system serves to replenish the water withdrawn from wells completed in the underlying SilurianDevonian aquifer. 3.7.4.2.5 Flow in Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifers
The Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system contains freshwater in a large area in northern Illinois. Freshwater circulates to great depths in northern Illinois because of the high permeability of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system and the large amount of recharge entering the system where the rocks crop out or subcrop around the Wisconsin Arch to the northwest. Water in the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system primarily is under confined conditions and moves through primary and secondary openings in the rocks. The primary openings consist of bedding planes and the voids between the grains composing the sandstones; the secondary openings consist of fractures and bedding planes in the clastic rocks and fractures and solution channels in the carbonate rocks. 3.7.4.3 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality 3.7.4.3.1 Surficial Aquifers Groundwater Quality The quality of water in the sand and gravel aquifers of the surficial aquifer system is similar throughout Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The quality of the groundwater is such that the water
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-64
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
generally is adequate or can be treated and made adequate for most uses. However, in some places in Illinois and Ohio, nitrate concentrations are larger than the maximum contaminant level of 10 milligrams per liter established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for drinking water. These large nitrate concentrations are possibly due to contamination of the groundwater by fertilizer or by septic tank effluent. Water in the surficial aquifer system typically is a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type, is hard, and has large concentrations of iron. The water typically has a neutral pH. Concentrations of dissolved solids mostly range between about 250 and 750 milligrams per liter with a median concentration that approaches 500 milligrams per liter, which is the secondary maximum contaminant level, recommended for drinking water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Median hardness concentrations, which are expressed as calcium carbonate, generally exceed 300 milligrams per liter. Most of the water contains iron concentrations of greater than 300 micrograms per liter, which causes the staining of laundry and porcelain plumbing fixtures. Concentrations of chloride and sulfate are generally less than 250 milligrams per liter, which is the secondary maximum contaminant level established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for drinking water. 3.7.4.3.2 Pennsylvanian Aquifers Groundwater Quality
The quality of water obtained from the upper parts of the Pennsylvanian aquifers generally is similar throughout the area. However, pronounced water quality changes occur with depth. Because the water-yielding sandstones and limestones are thin and are inter-layered with thin, low-permeability deposits, such as shale and coal, the water withdrawn from these aquifers tends to be a composite water type, which reflects interaction of the groundwater with several rock types containing different minerals. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water from the Pennsylvanian aquifers increase with increasing depth, but in the freshwater parts of the aquifers, the water is softened somewhat by ion exchange between the water and minerals in the shales and clays. Typically, the water from the freshwater parts of the Pennsylvanian aquifers is moderately hard and is a sodium bicarbonate type with a median dissolved-solids concentration slightly greater than 500 milligrams per liter. The increase in concentration of dissolved solids with increasing depth primarily is due to increases in the concentrations of sodium and chloride in the water. These constituents are present in the saltwater and brine in the deep parts of the Pennsylvanian aquifers. 3.7.4.3.3 Mississippian Aquifers Groundwater Quality
A summary of the results of chemical analyses of water from wells completed in the Mississippian aquifers in Greene County, Ind., on the eastern side of the Illinois Basin is moderately hard and is a sodium calcium bicarbonate type. Water from wells deeper than 200 feet in Greene County can have concentrations of sulfate and chloride exceeding 250 milligrams per liter and dissolved solids exceeding 500 milligrams per liter. Sparse data indicate water from the Mississippian aquifers in western Illinois is very hard, which reflects the predominance of limestone in this area. Slightly acidic groundwater partially dissolves the limestone, thus increasing the concentration of calcium and magnesium ions (primary hardness-causing constituents) in the water.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-65
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Water quality and well-depth data from the Mississippian and the Pennsylvanian aquifers in Greene and Sullivan Counties, Indiana indicate small increases in well depth are accompanied by large increases in dissolved-solids concentrations. Wells shallower than 160 feet yield water containing less than 500 milligrams per liter dissolved solids; water from deeper wells has dissolved-solids concentrations as large as 3,400 milligrams per liter. At shallow depths, the water generally is hard and is a calcium bicarbonate type or a calcium sodium bicarbonate type; whereas water from deep wells in the Mississippian aquifers might be a sodium chloride type. 3.7.4.3.4 Silurian-Devonian Aquifer Groundwater Quality
The chemical quality of water from the freshwater parts of the Silurian-Devonian aquifer generally is adequate or can be treated and made adequate, for most purposes. Concentrations of dissolved solids and iron exceeded secondary maximum contaminant levels established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in over 50 percent of samples. In addition, the water is hard, and sulfate concentrations exceed 250 milligrams per liter in many samples. Generally, chloride concentrations are less than 250 milligrams per liter where the aquifer is directly overlain by the surficial aquifer system. However, chloride concentrations might be greater than 250 milligrams per liter down-dip, particularly where the aquifer is overlain by Devonian, Mississippian, or Pennsylvanian shales, which impede deep freshwater circulation. 3.7.4.3.5 Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer Groundwater Quality
Most of the data on the quality of water from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system in northern Illinois are from wells open to more than one aquifer in the system. The quality of water from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system in northern Illinois generally is suitable for most uses. However, the water commonly is hard and might contain concentrations of dissolved solids, sulfate, and iron exceeding secondary maximum contaminant levels established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for drinking water. Water from 74 wells completed in the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system in northern Illinois had concentrations of dissolved solids ranging from about 260 to 1,180 milligrams per liter, concentrations of hardness-causing constituents ranging from about 250 to 420 milligrams per liter, sulfate concentrations ranging from less than 10 (detection limit) to about 400 milligrams per liter, and iron concentrations ranging from less than 50 (detection limit) to about 2,000 micrograms per liter. The composite water representing the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system is a calcium magnesium bicarbonate type in northern Illinois. Toward the south where the aquifers are deeply buried, the water changes to a calcium magnesium bicarbonate chloride type; to the southwest, it changes to a sodium bicarbonate chloride type as it moves down the hydraulic gradient. Still further down-gradient, the water changes to a sodium chloride type. Sulfate is one of the dominant dissolved constituents of the water in the aquifer system in a small part of west-central Illinois.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-66
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.4.4 Groundwater Withdrawals. 3.7.4.4.1 Surficial Aquifers Groundwater Withdrawals Approximately 2 billion gallons of fresh groundwater was withdrawn each day during 1985 from all the aquifers in the Central Lowland Province. Of this amount, about 53 percent, or about 1.1 billion gallons per day, was withdrawn from the sand and gravel aquifers of the surficial aquifer system. About 445 million gallons per day was withdrawn from the surficial aquifer system in Illinois, 341 million gallons per day in Indiana, and 285 million gallons per day in Ohio. Withdrawals for public supply constituted the largest or second largest use category in each State, and accounted for about 165 million gallons per day in Illinois, 123 million gallons per day in Indiana, and 191 million gallons per day in Ohio. Large withdrawals were made for industrial, mining, and thermoelectric power use in Illinois and Indiana. 3.7.4.4.2 Pennsylvanian Aquifers Groundwater Withdrawals
Yields of wells completed in the Pennsylvanian aquifers have been reported to range from less than 1 to about 100 gallons per minute. The average well yield is about 10 gallons per minute. Fresh ground-water withdrawals from the Pennsylvanian aquifers are relatively small. Withdrawals from these aquifers during 1985 were less than 4 percent of the total withdrawals in Illinois and less than 1 percent of the total withdrawals in Indiana. 3.7.4.4.3 Mississippian Aquifers Groundwater Withdrawals
The reported yields of wells completed in the Mississippian aquifers range from less than 1 to more than 100 gallons per minute; the average well yield is about 10 gallons per minute. Properly completed and developed wells commonly yield from 20 to 30 gallons per minute. The largest volumes of water are obtained from wells penetrating large openings in the rocks, such as bedding planes, fractures, and solution openings. Fresh groundwater withdrawals from the Mississippian aquifers during 1985 were less than 3 percent of the total groundwater withdrawn in Illinois. Withdrawals from Mississippian aquifers in Indiana during the same period were less than 1 percent of the total groundwater withdrawn. 3.7.4.4.4 Silurian-Devonian Aquifer Groundwater Withdrawals
Total fresh groundwater withdrawals from the Silurian-Devonian aquifer in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio were about 488 million gallons per day during 1985. About 95 percent of this water was withdrawn from wells completed in the aquifer in the Central Lowland Physiographic Province. The remainder came from wells located in southernmost Illinois and Ohio in the Interior Low Plateaus Province. Water withdrawn from the Silurian-Devonian aquifer was about 21 percent of the total groundwater withdrawn for all three States during 1985. The withdrawals from the Silurian-Devonian aquifer were about 15 percent of the total groundwater withdrawn in Illinois, 18 percent in Ohio, and 34 percent in Indiana.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-67
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
The yields of wells completed in the Silurian-Devonian aquifer range from less than 5 to more than 1,000 gallons per minute. Yields of 5 to 15 gallons per minute can be obtained from most wells completed in the aquifer. Large well yields are possible locally in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, but the largest well yields, more than 1,500 gallons per minute, are reported from northern Illinois. 3.7.4.4.5 Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer Groundwater Withdrawals
Fresh ground-water withdrawals from the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system totaled 315 million gallons per day during 1985. About 197 million gallons per day was withdrawn for public supply and about 77 million gallons per day was withdrawn for industrial, mining, and thermoelectric power purposes. Withdrawals for commercial and domestic needs were nearly 35 million gallons per day, and about 6 million gallons per day was withdrawn for agricultural purposes. Table 3.7-4 shows the groundwater withdrawals for the Illinois Basin Region by state, and broken further down by water-use category.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-68
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Table 3.7-4
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 3.80 0.06 0.00 0.04 1.55 0.00 1.48 1.24 1.85 1.20 0.07 11.29
Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties – Illinois Basin
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04
STATE
COUNTY
IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL
Gallatin Jackson Macoupin Perry Randolph Saline Sangamon Vermilion Wabash White Williamson ILLINOIS TOTALS
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.08 0.17 0.89 0.48 0.63 0.32 2.98 0.94 0.21 0.19 1.90 8.79
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 12.91 0.18 0.04 0.49 0.14 0.66 1.00 0.05 0.30 9.49 0.00 25.26
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.07 0.28 0.65 0.20 0.34 0.17 0.36 0.19 0.07 0.14 0.16 2.63
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.16 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.70
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.26 0.00 0.15 1.52 3.44 0.03 7.12
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 17.46 1.26 1.58 1.21 2.66 2.06 5.82 5.27 2.72 11.97 2.14 54.15
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 1.23 2.49 0.03 4.38
STATE
COUNTY
IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN
Daviess Dubois Gibson Knox Pike Sullivan Vigo Warrick
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 2.94 0.00 1.84 4.94 1.17 1.63 10.55 3.29
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.64 0.31 0.41 0.50 0.15 0.31 2.05 0.35
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 1.57 0.00 0.29 0.05 0.00 0.00 2.99 2.91
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.70 0.00 0.40 5.46 0.00 3.59 1.04 0.00
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.82 0.87 0.17 0.25 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.07
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 1.60 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 1.98 0.00 2.36 2.65 1.93 0.36
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 6.67 1.18 6.69 11.23 3.71 8.25 19.06 6.98
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-69
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
INDIANA TOTALS 26.36 4.72 7.81 11.19 2.35 0.00 2.06 9.28 63.77 0.00
STATE
COUNTY
KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY
Christian Daviess Henderson Hopkins Muhlenberg Ohio Union Webster KENTUCKY TOTALS
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 14.10 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 15.04
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.13 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.08 1.09
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 8.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.89
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.02 0.17 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.25
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.20
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 2.09
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.19 23.51 0.38 2.46 0.09 0.68 0.07 0.18 27.56
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2005 Data downloaded from http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/, downloaded 16-Sep-2010 Information reported in USGS Circular 1344 (Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A., 2009, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 p.)
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-70
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.5
Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains
Figure 3.7-5 illustrates the general extent of the aquifers making up the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains aquifer system. 3.7.5.1 Volcanic- And Sedimentary-Rock Aquifers Volcanic- and sedimentary-rock aquifers are in small areas of northwestern Wyoming and southwestern Montana. These aquifers are complexly inter-bedded and consist of extrusive igneous rocks (primarily basalt and rhyolite), beds of tuff and volcanic ash, and beds of semiconsolidated to consolidated sedimentary rocks containing large to small amounts of volcanic material. Locally, sand and gravel deposited as outwash from alpine glaciers or alluvial deposits in stream valleys overlie the volcanic and sedimentary rocks and are in direct hydraulic connection with them. 3.7.5.2 Unconsolidated-Deposit Aquifers Unconsolidated-deposit aquifers in sediments of Quaternary age are the most productive aquifers in the region and are the source of water for thousands of shallow wells. These aquifers consist primarily of sand and gravel but locally contain cobbles and boulders. Commonly, the aquifers contain clay and silt either mixed with the sand and gravel or as beds or lenses; where bedded, the clay and silt form confining units. The unconsolidated-deposit aquifers are important sources of water for all use categories in the four-State (Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota) area and are in the following settings: A broad band of continental glacial deposits in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota Narrow valleys along major streams, primarily in southeastern Montana and locally in southwestern North Dakota, western South Dakota, and northeastern Wyoming Broad valleys in structural or erosional basins in western Montana and central, southern, and western Wyoming
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-71
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.7-5 Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Aquifers
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-72
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.5.3 Upper Tertiary Aquifers Upper Tertiary aquifers are mostly beds of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sand and gravel of Pliocene and Miocene age. Fine-grained deposits of clay and silt commonly are inter-bedded or mixed with the sand and gravel. Thin beds of basalt and volcanic ash are inter-bedded locally with the sediments composing the upper Tertiary aquifers in Montana. In southern South Dakota and southeastern Wyoming, upper Tertiary aquifers consist of broad, extensive sheets of alluvium deposited by a network of branching and rejoining streams. The source of the alluvium was the Middle Rocky Mountains to the west. Thick sequences of sand and gravel in the alluvium compose productive aquifers, especially in the Miocene Ogallala Formation and the Miocene and Oligocene Arikaree Formation. The upper Tertiary aquifers in this area are part of the High Plains aquifer system, which is as much as 1,000 feet thick in southeastern Wyoming. Upper Tertiary aquifers in western Montana and central and western Wyoming are mostly in the same small structural and erosional basins containing unconsolidated-deposit aquifers, whereas in central Wyoming, the aquifers are in the large Wind River, the Great Divide, and the Washakie structural basins. The upper Tertiary aquifers in these basins consist of sand and gravel deposited as overlapping and coalescing alluvial fans by streams entering the basins from the surrounding mountains. In places, the alluvial fans have been partly eroded, and the upper Tertiary aquifers are exposed as shelf-like terraces cut in or near the basin walls. The alluvial deposits in the terraces generally are extremely permeable and allow water to percolate rapidly downward through the deposits to the water table. Upper Tertiary aquifers generally are less than 2,000 feet thick but are as much as 6,000 feet thick in some basins. 3.7.5.4 Lower Tertiary Aquifers Lower Tertiary aquifers consist mostly of semi-consolidated to consolidated sandstone beds of Oligocene to Paleocene age. The water-yielding sandstones are inter-bedded with shale, mudstone, siltstone, lignite, and coal and locally with beds of limestone, none of which are considered to be aquifers. Some coal beds yield water, particularly if the coal is fractured or has been partially burned and has formed clinker zones. Most of the lower Tertiary rocks were deposited in continental environments, but some of the shale and limestone beds were deposited in a marine environment and form confining units. Lower Tertiary aquifers in eastern Montana, western North Dakota and South Dakota, and northeastern Wyoming consist mostly of sandstone beds in the Fort Union Formation of Paleocene age. Lower Tertiary rocks in this area include those of the Fort Union coal region, which contains a major part of the Nation's reserves of coal. The lower Tertiary aquifers in this area are down-warped into the Williston and the Powder River Basins and consist of parts of the uppermost consolidated-rock formations in these basins. Lower Tertiary rocks generally are less than 1,000 feet thick in the Williston Basin, but not all these rocks yield water. The rocks
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-73
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
composing the lower Tertiary aquifers contain more shale in their eastern parts than elsewhere, and the transmissivity of the aquifers, therefore, decreases to the east. In the western two-thirds of Wyoming and adjacent areas of Montana, the lower Tertiary aquifers usually are in structural basins that have been down-warped to great depths. The total thickness of lower Tertiary rocks in some of these basins is as much as 10,000 feet; however, the cumulative thickness of the aquifers rarely exceeds 3,000 feet because not all the lower Tertiary rocks are permeable. Table 3.7-5 shows the groundwater withdrawals for the Northern Rocky Mountain Region by state, and further broken down by water-use category.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-74
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Table 3.7-5
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 12.24 0.06 0.55 12.85
Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties – Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
STATE
COUNTY
CO CO CO
Adams Moffat Routt COLORADO TOTALS
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.02 0.44 0.78 1.24
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.71
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 2.06 9.38 5.41 16.85
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.17 0.20 0.07 0.44
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.17 0.65 0.45 1.27
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 15.35 10.24 7.28 32.87
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.03 0.49 0.00 0.52
STATE
COUNTY
MT MT MT MT MT MT
Big Horn Cascade Judith Basin Musselshell Richland Rosebud MONTANA TOTALS
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.27 1.33 0.11 0.62 1.09 0.71 4.13
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.52 0.79 0.08 0.18 0.27 0.09 1.93
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.21
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 4.12 1.68 1.57 0.44 1.67 1.27 10.75
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 1.10 0.24 0.30 0.58 0.18 0.36 2.76
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 1.83 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.09 1.96
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 6.02 4.87 2.11 1.87 3.22 2.70 20.79
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 1.83 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 1.87
STATE
COUNTY
ND ND
McLean Mercer
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.40 0.76
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.19 0.12
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 1.08 0.40
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.30 0.29
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.13 0.01
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 2.10 1.58
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-75
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
ND Oliver NORTH DAKOTA TOTALS 0.10 0.07 0.26 0.60 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.00
1.26
0.38
0.26
2.08
0.87
0.00
0.14
0.00
4.99
0.00
STATE
COUNTY
WY WY WY WY WY
Campbell Carbon Converse Lincoln Sweetwater WYOMING TOTALS
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 3.66 2.46 2.04 4.81 0.14 13.11
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.01 0.10 0.31 0.33 0.00 0.75
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.38 0.10 0.06 0.23 1.24 2.01
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 1.13 1.22 2.77 3.20 9.11 17.43
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.57 0.23 0.24 0.10 0.12 1.26
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 54.60 3.11 4.67 0.75 34.46 97.59
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 37.21 4.85 8.41 9.10 11.56 71.13
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 23.49 3.11 1.68 0.32 33.51 62.11
2005 Data downloaded from http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/, downloaded 16-Sep-2010 Information reported in USGS Circular 1344 (Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A., 2009, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 p.)
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-76
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.5.5 Upper Cretaceous Aquifers Beds of consolidated sandstone compose most of the upper Cretaceous aquifers. The sandstone is inter-bedded with shale, siltstone, and occasional thin, lenticular beds of coal. Upper Cretaceous aquifers crop out mostly around the edges of the Williston and the Powder River Basins but are exposed in smaller areas along the margins of the Green River, the Great Divide, the Hanna, the Wind River, and the Bighorn Basins. The aquifers are down-warped and faulted to depths of several thousand feet in these basins but contain mostly saline water in their deeper parts. The principal water-yielding formations are the Hell Creek Formation and the Fox Hills Sandstone. In western Wyoming, some water is obtained from the Lance Formation, which is equivalent to the Hell Creek, and from the deeper Mesaverde Formation. The Judith River Formation and the Eagle Sandstone in west-central Montana also are used as a source of supply; these formations are not sufficiently permeable to yield water in eastern Montana. 3.7.5.6 Lower Cretaceous Aquifers Lower Cretaceous aquifers are exposed at the land surface mostly as wide to narrow bands completely or partly encircling basins or uplifted areas. Tectonic forces that acted on the Earth's crust warped formerly flat-lying rocks into several such structures. Subsequent erosion has exposed older rocks at the centers of the folds; progressively younger rocks surround the centers as concentric bands. The lower Cretaceous aquifers commonly contain highly mineralized water where they are deeply buried. Formations of consolidated sandstone compose the lower Cretaceous aquifers. Perhaps one of the best known and earliest described artesian aquifers in the nation is the Dakota aquifer (locally called the Inyan Kara aquifer), which is in Lower Cretaceous rocks exposed on the flanks of the Black Hills Uplift and extend more than 300 miles across South Dakota in the subsurface. The Newcastle Sandstone merges eastward in the subsurface with sandstones of the Inyan Kara Group to become the Dakota Sandstone. In Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming, the Muddy Sandstone and equivalent water-yielding rocks overlie the Skull Creek Shale and are equivalent to the Newcastle Sandstone. Sandstones equivalent to the Inyan Kara Group in North Dakota and South Dakota are part of the Kootenai Formation in central and western Montana. The Cloverly Formation in Wyoming, which is equivalent to the Dakota Sandstone, is an important aquifer. 3.7.5.7 Paleozoic Aquifers Paleozoic aquifers are exposed at the land surface only in small areas. Small areas in western Montana and western Wyoming are underlain by Paleozoic aquifers in outcrop and in the subsurface, but these areas are separated by faults from the main body of the aquifers. The Paleozoic aquifers consist mostly of limestone and dolomite, but some Paleozoic sandstones also yield water. Confining units overlying and separating the aquifers consist of shale and siltstone with some beds of anhydrite and halite (rock salt). The Paleozoic aquifers can be separated into two groups-those in upper Paleozoic rocks and those in lower Paleozoic rocks. Aquifers in lower Paleozoic rocks consist mostly of the Bighorn and the Whitewood Dolomites and limestone and dolomite beds in the Red River Formation, which are all of Ordovician age. Locally, limestone and dolomite of the Darby Formation (Devonian and Mississippian),
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-77
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
sandstones of the Winnipeg Formation (Ordovician), the Deadwood Formation (Cambrian and Ordovician) and the Flathead Sandstone (Cambrian) yield small volumes of water. Confining units of shale, shaly carbonate rocks, anhydrite beds, and halite of Devonian, Silurian, and Cambrian age locally separate the aquifers in lower Paleozoic rocks from the Madison Limestone. Except near the mountains, the aquifers in lower Paleozoic rocks are deeply buried and, therefore, are not a major source of water. 3.7.5.8 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow. 3.7.5.8.1 Flow in Volcanic- And Sedimentary-Rock Aquifers The permeability of the volcanic- and sedimentary-rock aquifers is extremely variable because they are complexly inter-bedded and consist of numerous rock types. In some places, permeability is high, as indicated by the large springs issuing from these aquifers; in most places, however, the aquifers yield only enough water to supply domestic wells. The aquifers are mostly within the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park. Accordingly, the potential to develop these aquifers is lacking. The volcanic- and sedimentary-rock aquifers are much more extensive and important as a source of freshwater further west. 3.7.5.8.2 Flow in Unconsolidated-Deposit Aquifers
The sediments composing the unconsolidated-deposit aquifers were deposited as outwash from continental and alpine, or mountain, glaciers and as alluvium from streams. Because of the wide range of depositional environments, the aquifers have a wide range of permeability. Sand and gravel making up alluvial deposits and glacial outwash generally are extremely permeable, whereas fine-grained lake deposits and poorly-sorted till have minimal permeability and commonly form local confining units. Unconsolidated-deposit aquifers consisting of sand and gravel deposited as alluvium along streams in the central part of the four-State area generally are thin, narrow bands. These aquifers in stream-valley alluvium locally yield sufficient water for some uses but generally are less productive than the other unconsolidated-deposit aquifers. In western Montana and western and central Wyoming, unconsolidated-deposit aquifers are mostly alluvial deposits that partly fill broad valleys in mountainous areas. The basins containing these deposits were formed by faulting or erosion or both. The alluvium was deposited primarily as coalescing alluvial fans by streams flowing into the valleys from the surrounding mountains. In some valleys, the basin-fill alluvial deposits contain glacial outwash and other types of deposits that resulted from alpine glaciation; the extent of the glaciation is not known. Locally, sand and gravel beds of late Tertiary age compose aquifers beneath the Quaternary deposits that form most of the basin fill. The upper Tertiary aquifers can be distinguished only with difficulty from the younger unconsolidated-deposit aquifers in most basins. Clayey lake-bed deposits form confining units in some basins; such conditions are particularly common in valleys in Montana. The thickness of the unconsolidated-deposit aquifers is unknown in most basins because no wells totally penetrate the aquifers but is known to be as much as 900 feet in some basins. Basin-fill deposits typically are coarse grained near basin margins and finer grained toward basin centers.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-78
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.5.8.3
Flow in Upper Tertiary Aquifers
The permeability of the upper Tertiary aquifers is variable and directly related to the grain size and sorting of the deposits composing the aquifers. Where the aquifers consist primarily of sand and gravel, they are extremely permeable; permeability decreases as clay content increases. 3.7.5.8.4 Flow in Lower Tertiary Aquifers
The permeability of the lower Tertiary aquifers is variable and is directly related to the amount of interconnected pore space in the sandstone beds composing the aquifers. Most of the pore space consists of openings between individual sand grains, but some is secondary openings, such as bedding planes and joints. Thick coal seams, which are inter-bedded with sandstone or with finegrained sediments, also can have joints and bedding planes that store and transmit water. Where erosion has exposed coal beds at the land surface, wildfires or lightning have ignited some of the beds. The coal then burned until the oxygen supply in the beds was exhausted and, thus, formed clinker zones (that are extremely permeable and can extend a considerable distance into the buried parts of the coal beds). Where the clinker zones are saturated, they form productive aquifers from which springs issue. However, most known clinker zones are above the water table. 3.7.5.8.5 Flow in Upper Cretaceous Aquifers
Most of the water in the sandstone aquifers is in pore spaces between individual grains of sand, but some of the aquifers contain fractures, bedding planes, and joints providing large-scale openings which store and transmit most of the water. Where sandstone beds are thin and interbedded with shale or other rocks with minimal permeability, wells might need to be drilled deep enough to penetrate several sandstone beds in order to obtain an adequate supply of water. The Pierre Shale, which is a major confining unit in eastern Montana and in most of North Dakota and South Dakota, is more than 3,000 feet thick in places. The Pierre Shale underlies the Fox Hills Sandstone and separates it from deeper aquifers. Locally, the Pierre Shale yields small volumes of water from thin sandstone beds or from highly weathered or fractured zones in the uppermost shale beds. The water usually is highly mineralized, however, and the Pierre Shale is not considered to be a principal aquifer even though it yields sufficient water to supply many domestic wells. The Pierre Shale subcrops over about one-third of eastern North Dakota and about two-thirds of eastern South Dakota. 3.7.5.8.6 Flow in Lower Cretaceous Aquifers
Because the sandstones of the Dakota aquifer receive some recharge at high altitudes and some by upward leakage from deeper aquifers, the water in the aquifer is under high artesian pressure. When development of the Dakota aquifer began in the late 19th century, many wells completed in the aquifer flowed at the land surface. The rate of flow of some wells was as much as 4,000 gallons per minute, and much water was wasted because these wells were allowed to flow continuously. Water levels in the aquifer declined 700 feet or more in some places.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-79
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.5.8.7
Flow in Paleozoic Aquifers
The Paleozoic aquifers receive recharge where they are exposed at the land surface on the flanks or crests of anticlines or by downward leakage from shallower aquifers in places where the shallower aquifers have higher hydraulic heads. From aquifer outcrop areas, groundwater moves down the dip of the aquifers into major structural basins, such as the Powder River, the Wind River, and the Bighorn in Wyoming and the Williston in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The water eventually discharges by upward leakage to shallower aquifers or moves to the land surface where the aquifers are exposed on the borders of the basins. Recharge areas of the Paleozoic aquifers generally are at high altitudes, and, in the subsurface, the aquifers are overlain by confining units in most places. As a result, water in these aquifers is under high artesian pressure, and wells completed in the aquifers commonly flow at the land surface. 3.7.5.9 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality 3.7.5.9.1 Unconsolidated-Deposit Aquifer Groundwater Quality Ground-water chemistry in the Quaternary aquifers is naturally variable and generally high in mineral content. Calcium, sodium, bicarbonate, and sulfate are the predominant major ions in water from the Quaternary aquifers. Concentrations of dissolved solids in water samples from the Quaternary aquifers ranged from 128 to 24,300 mg/L, with a median of 956 mg/L. (Water Quality in the Yellowstone River Basin, USGS Circular 1234, 2004) 3.7.5.9.2 Upper Tertiary Aquifer Groundwater Quality
According to Whitcomb and Lowry (1968), the major Tertiary aquifers in the Wind River Basin are the Split Rock Formation of Oligocene and Miocene age and the Eocene Wind River Formation. The Oligocene White River Formation has similar hydrologic characteristics as the Split Rock Formation but has not been widely developed as a ground-water source because shallower aquifers usually provide adequate water for stock and domestic uses. (USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4269, 1999) 3.7.5.9.3 Lower Tertiary Aquifer Groundwater Quality
The lower Tertiary aquifers contain freshwater over a larger area of the region than any other aquifers. Because of their wide extent, the lower Tertiary aquifers are an important source of supply even though they are not highly permeable. Groundwater chemistry in the Lower Tertiary aquifers is naturally variable and generally high in mineral content, with sodium, bicarbonate, and sulfate the most common major ions. Waters from the lower Tertiary aquifers generally were more mineralized, ranging from 352 to 5,800 mg/L, with a median of 1,302 mg/L. (Water Quality in the Yellowstone River Basin, USGS Circular 1234, 2004) 3.7.5.9.4 Upper Cretaceous Aquifer Groundwater Quality
Upper Cretaceous aquifers extend are widespread in the subsurface but contain freshwater only where they crop out and for a short distance down-dip of where they are covered by younger rocks.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-80
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.5.9.5
Lower Cretaceous Aquifer Groundwater Quality
Water in the Dakota aquifer moves hundreds of miles from recharge areas to places where the water discharges upward to shallower aquifers, surface-water bodies, or wells. Because the water is in contact with aquifer minerals for a long time, it commonly contains large concentrations of dissolved minerals. The aquifer contains water with dissolved-solids concentrations of greater than 10,000 milligrams per liter in about one-half of North Dakota and in a large part of northwestern South Dakota. Locally, in parts of the Williston Basin in extreme northeastern Montana, the aquifer is more than 5,500 feet below the land surface and contains brine. 3.7.5.9.6 Paleozoic Aquifer Groundwater Quality
Where they are buried to great depths, the Madison Limestone and older, permeable Paleozoic rocks contain oil, gas, and brine in places. Fresh groundwater that moves around the margins of bodies of brine can become highly mineralized as it mixes with the dense brine. Water discharging from the Paleozoic aquifers in northeastern North Dakota contains large concentrations of dissolved solids as a result of this type of mixing. 3.7.5.10 Groundwater Withdrawals in Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains 3.7.5.10.1 Unconsolidated-Deposit Aquifers Withdrawal The permeability of the unconsolidated-deposit aquifers is variable. Average yields of wells completed in these aquifers range from about 1 to 1,000 gallons per minute. Yields of wells completed in thick sequences of coarse sand and gravel, however, can exceed 3,500 gallons per minute. Depths of wells completed in glacial outwash deposits generally are less than 300 feet; wells completed in alluvium along stream valleys generally are less than 100 feet deep; and wells completed in basin-fill deposits are as deep as 900 feet. 3.7.5.10.2 Upper Tertiary Aquifers Withdrawal Generally, the Upper Tertiary aquifers become more clayey and less permeable as depth increases. Yields of wells completed in these aquifers are reported to range from 5 to 800 gallons per minute, but yields of a few wells exceed 2,000 gallons per minute. In South Dakota, most wells yield 100 gallons per minute or less and yields rarely exceed 1,500 gallons per minute. Because the upper Tertiary aquifers usually are at shallow depths, most wells completed in the aquifers are less than 600 feet deep. However, some well depths exceed 1,000 feet in southeastern Wyoming. 3.7.5.10.3 Lower Tertiary Aquifers Withdrawal Yields of most wells completed in the Lower Tertiary aquifers range from 1 to 50 gallons per minute in Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming and from 1 to 100 gallons per minute in North Dakota. Maximum yields exceed 500 gallons per minute in South Dakota and 1,000 gallons per minute in Wyoming. These aquifers are deeply buried or overlain by fine-grained rocks in many places. Wells completed in the aquifers commonly are 300 to 900 feet deep and locally are 1,000 to 3,000 feet deep.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-81
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.5.10.4 Upper Cretaceous Aquifers Withdrawal The permeability of the Upper Cretaceous aquifers is somewhat variable, but generally not as great as aquifers in younger rocks. Wells completed in the Hell Creek Formation and the Fox Hills Sandstone yields range from 5 to 50 gallons per minute. Locally, these formations yield about 200 gallons per minute in Montana, 300 gallons per minute in North Dakota, and 1,000 gallons per minute in some of the structural basins in Wyoming. Yields of wells completed in the Judith River Formation and the Eagle Sandstone commonly range from 5 to 20 gallons per minute, but locally exceed 200 gallons per minute. Wells obtaining water from the upper Cretaceous aquifers generally are less than 800 feet deep but a few wells are as deep as 2,000 feet in Montana and 3,000 feet in Wyoming. 3.7.5.10.5 Lower Cretaceous Aquifers Withdrawal Porosity and permeability are variable in the Lower Cretaceous aquifers. Yields of most wells completed in these aquifers range from about 5 to 60 gallons per minute, which is about the same as reported for wells in the Upper Cretaceous aquifers. Yields of some wells completed in the Lower Cretaceous aquifers exceed 500 to 1,000 gallons per minute, however. Wells must be drilled to considerable depths in many places because the Lower Cretaceous aquifers commonly are deeply buried. Some wells completed in these aquifers are 5,000 feet deep or more. 3.7.5.10.6 Paleozoic Aquifers Withdrawal Although some water is obtained from wells completed in the Tensleep Sandstone and in sandstone beds of the Minnelusa Formation and equivalent rocks, which are of Pennsylvanian and Permian age, the most productive aquifer in upper Paleozoic rocks is the Madison Limestone of Devonian and Mississippian age. The Madison Limestone, or Group, was deposited in warm, shallow marine waters and originally contained much lime mud. Initially, the limestone had minimal permeability until it was altered by the processes of dolomitization, dedolomitization, and partial dissolution, all of which increased the permeability. In some places, large solution cavities, through which large volumes of water can move rapidly, have developed in the limestone. Wells penetrating such solution cavities can yield extremely large volumes of water, especially where several cavities are interconnected. Springs commonly issue from solution openings in the Madison Limestone; the flow of one of these springs in Montana is reported to be 300 cubic feet per second, or about 194 million gallons per day. Table 3.8-5 shows the groundwater withdrawals for the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region by state, and further broken down by water-use category.
3.7.6
Northwest
3.7.6.1 Primary Northwest Aquifers
Figure 3.7-6 illustrates the general extent of the aquifers making up the Northwest Region aquifer system.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-82
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.6.1.1
Unconsolidated-Deposit Aquifers
Unconsolidated-deposit aquifers, which consist primarily of sand and gravel, are the most productive and widespread aquifers in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. These aquifers are prevalent along present and ancestral stream valleys and in lowlands associated with structural or erosional basins. These unconsolidated-deposit aquifers provide freshwater for most publicsupply, domestic, commercial, and industrial purposes. They also are important sources of water for agricultural (primarily irrigation). The unconsolidated deposits are mostly alluvial deposits, but in places, they consist of eolian, glacial, or volcanic deposits. Alluvial deposits consist primarily of well-sorted particles ranging in size from clay to boulders. The finer particles-clay and silt-generally form confining units, whereas the coarser particles-primarily sand and gravel with some cobbles and boulders-form productive aquifers. Eolian deposits, or loess, consist chiefly of clay, silt, and fine sand. Although loess is well sorted, it does not form productive aquifers because it is fine grained, usually unsaturated, and commonly is only a veneer overlying other rocks. Glacial deposits consist chiefly of mixtures of particles ranging in size from clay to boulders. These deposits can be either well sorted where they were deposited by glacial meltwater (glacial outwash) or unsorted where they were deposited at the margins of the ice (glacial till). Where these deposits are well sorted, they form productive aquifers. Volcanic deposits consist chiefly of ash and basaltic sand, particularly in southwestern Idaho and southeastern Oregon. These deposits, which commonly are inter-bedded with thin flows of basalt and welded tuff, generally have minimal permeability and do not form productive aquifers. Typically, unconsolidated deposits along stream valleys consist chiefly of sand and gravel that form productive aquifers. The thickness of the deposits along present stream valleys commonly is less than 250 feet.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-83
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.7-6 Northwest Aquifers
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-84
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.6.1.2
Aquifers in Pre-Miocene Rocks
Aquifers in pre-Miocene rocks consist of undifferentiated volcanic rocks, undifferentiated consolidated sedimentary rocks, and undifferentiated igneous and metamorphic rocks, principally in the mountainous areas. In some places, the thickness of the volcanic rocks might be as much as about 5,000 feet and the consolidated sedimentary rocks might be as much as about 15,000 feet. The thickness of the igneous and metamorphic rocks is unknown. East of the Cascade Range, the aquifers in pre-Miocene rocks generally yield freshwater but locally yield saltwater. Within the Cascade Range and west of it, these aquifers commonly yield saltwater. Fresh ground-water withdrawals are used mostly for domestic and commercial purposes. 3.7.6.1.3 Alaska Groundwater Aquifers
Permafrost is soil, unconsolidated deposits, or bedrock that has been continuously at a temperature of 32° Fahrenheit or less for two or more years. The term is synonymous with "perennially frozen ground" but is defined solely on the basis of temperature; locally, permafrost might contain very little water or ice, or might contain highly mineralized water that remains liquid at temperatures less than 32° Fahrenheit. Most permafrost, however, is consolidated by ice. Permafrost is widespread in Alaska, but occurs only in small areas at high altitudes elsewhere in the United States. The thickness and areal continuity of permafrost are greatest in the continuous permafrost zone of northern Alaska and diminish southward. Locally, permafrost extends to depths of 2,000 feet below land surface in parts of the continuous permafrost zone. Areas near the southern and southeastern coasts of Alaska generally contain no permafrost. Human activities can affect the local thickness of permafrost because changes in ground surface temperature of only a few degrees can change permafrost thickness. Removing natural vegetation and its insulating effect in the process of clearing land causes increased solar absorption, a rise in surface temperature, and thinning of permafrost. Conversely, adding fill during road building or other construction projects increases the thickness of insulating material above the permafrost and under these insulated roadways the permafrost is less likely to melt. Heat radiating from the floors of buildings constructed directly on the land surface can cause thinning of permafrost, whereas the shading effect of buildings constructed on pilings creates a less likely chance of the permafrost melting. The principles of groundwater recharge, movement, and discharge are, in general, as valid in permafrost areas as in more temperate regions. However, groundwater flow systems in permafrost areas are affected by cold climate and the presence of perennially frozen ground. The top of perennially frozen ground is called the permafrost table. Above the permafrost table is the active layer, a zone that freezes in winter and thaws in summer; permeable, saturated parts of the active layer constitute supra-permafrost aquifers. These aquifers are seasonal and are primarily useful as a summer water supply where they contain water of usable chemical quality. Suprapermafrost aquifers are a source of freshwater for some villages near the Arctic Ocean. In recent years, however, water pumped from freshwater lakes in summer and stored in heated tanks for winter use is a more likely source of supply. The permafrost table forms a basal confining unit for the supra-permafrost aquifers.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-85
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Permeable material below the base of permafrost constitutes sub-permafrost aquifers. In the zone of continuous permafrost, these aquifers consist mostly of consolidated rock; in the discontinuous permafrost zone, they commonly consist of unconsolidated deposits. Subpermafrost aquifers are used as sources of water supply in parts of the basins of the Yukon and Tanana Rivers where the aquifers contain freshwater. However, sub-permafrost aquifers in parts of northern and western Alaska and in the Copper River Lowland contain highly mineralized water. Information on subsurface geology, groundwater, and permafrost is sparse in Alaska, and for many places no data are available. In large parts of the State, the surface geology is not well known. It is difficult to extrapolate hydrologic conditions from the few areas where they are known to different localities that have similar geologic settings because local variations in geologic and permafrost conditions significantly affect the occurrence and movement of groundwater. 3.7.6.2 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow. 3.7.6.2.1 Flow in Unconsolidated-Deposit Aquifers Basins filled with unconsolidated deposits were formed by faulting or erosion or both. Thick sequences of unconsolidated deposits having variable permeability are common in these basins. In some basins, these deposits might be as much as 5,500 feet thick. Where thick sequences of these deposits are present, the uppermost 500 feet generally is the most permeable because the deposits are increasingly compacted with depth. The volume of water stored in the deposits and the permeability of the deposits depend primarily on the parent rock type. Basins in areas where the bedrock consists of volcanic, igneous, and metamorphic rocks typically contain extremely permeable aquifers consisting of coarse sand, gravel, and cobbles eroded from the parent rocks, whereas basins in areas where the bedrock consists of consolidated sedimentary rocks of marine origin, such as limestone, dolomite, and shale, typically contain much less permeable clay, silt, and fine sand eroded from the parent rocks. In both types of basins, the deposits typically are coarser grained near the margins of the basins and finer grained near the center of the basins. Permeability of the unconsolidated deposits is variable; sand and gravel commonly yield from 20 to 2,000 gallons per minute to wells. Coarser deposits along major streams and deposits of glacial outwash yield from 500 to 2,500 gallons per minute to wells penetrating from 50 to 150 feet of saturated deposits. Fine-grained deposits commonly yield from 1 to 100 gallons per minute depending on the percentage of clay. Unconsolidated deposits in closed basins in southeastern Oregon are typically fine grained and yield from 1 to 200 gallons per minute. Public-supply wells completed in glacial outwash in Washington reportedly yield as much as 10,000 gallons per minute in the Puget Sound area and 19,000 gallons per minute in the Spokane Valley. The ability of this type of aquifer to yield water usually decreases with depth as the unconsolidated deposits become progressively finer grained and compacted. In some basins, however, the unconsolidated deposits might be underlain by volcanic rocks more permeable than the unconsolidated deposits.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-86
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.6.2.2
Flow in Aquifers in Pre-Miocene Rocks
In the volcanic rocks, water is present primarily in joints and fractures as in the Pliocene and younger and the Miocene basaltic-rock aquifers. In the consolidated sedimentary rocks, water is present primarily in solution cavities and joints in carbonate rocks and in fractures, faults, and intergranular pore spaces in clastic rocks, such as sandstone and conglomerate. In igneous and metamorphic rocks, water is present primarily in fractures, faults, and weathered zones that developed on exposed surfaces. The aquifers in all rock types generally yield only from 1 to 100 gallons per minute of water to wells. In all rock types, but especially in igneous and metamorphic rocks, yields of wells tend to decrease as depth increases and open spaces become fewer, smaller, or are filled with secondary minerals; for example, there generally are few open spaces in igneous and metamorphic rocks below a depth of about 300 to 400 feet. 3.7.6.2.3 Flow in Alaska Aquifers
Permafrost affects ground-water recharge, movement, and discharge. The frozen ground blocks the downward percolation of rainfall or meltwater, and thus restricts recharge to sub-permafrost aquifers. Where the permafrost table is shallow, it can perch water near the land and surface. Permafrost also blocks the lateral movement of groundwater, and acts as a confining unit for water in sub-permafrost aquifers. Discharge of water confined beneath the permafrost is possible only through unfrozen zones, or taliks, that perforate the permafrost layer. Although a huge quantity of water is stored in the permafrost, the water cannot be obtained and the presence of thick, continuous permafrost greatly limits the usefulness of most shallow aquifers. 3.7.6.3 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality. 3.7.6.3.1 Unconsolidated-Deposit Aquifer Groundwater Quality The unconsolidated-deposit aquifers generally yield freshwater but locally yield saltwater, especially in south-central Oregon and in coastal areas. In south-central Oregon, the salt-water generally is the result of evaporation of surface and groundwater in closed basins, which concentrates the dissolved constituents in the remaining water. In coastal areas, the saltwater is the result of induced movement of saltwater from the ocean or other saltwater bodies into the freshwater aquifers; this movement often is caused by large withdrawals from wells. Because saltwater is denser than freshwater, saltwater contamination is restricted to the basal part of the freshwater aquifers. Where such saltwater contamination has occurred, the adverse effects can be mitigated either by discontinuing withdrawals or by adjusting withdrawal depths or rates or both, so that, in effect, freshwater is "skimmed" from the top part of the aquifers. 3.7.6.3.2 Pre-Miocene Rock Aquifer Groundwater Quality
In places, particularly in western Oregon and in Washington west of the Cascade Range, the consolidated sedimentary rocks are of marine origin. At depth, these rocks contain saltwater that can contaminate overlying freshwater aquifers. Locally, the saltwater can move upward through open spaces, particularly faults, and either mix with the freshwater in overlying aquifers or discharge to the land surface as springs. Such discharge can adversely affect the quality of water in the surficial aquifers containing freshwater.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-87
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Saltwater contamination of freshwater aquifers also can occur in coastal areas if withdrawals from wells are sufficiently large to induce saltwater movement from the ocean or other saltwater bodies into the freshwater aquifers. Because salt-water is denser than freshwater, saltwater contamination generally is restricted to the basal part of the freshwater aquifers. 3.7.6.3.3 Alaska Aquifer Groundwater Quality
The chemical quality of water from aquifers in unconsolidated deposits in Alaska generally is suitable for most uses. The water, classified by the dominant dissolved ions it contains, is a calcium bicarbonate or calcium magnesium bicarbonate type in inland areas. Locally, in areas near the coast, these aquifers contain moderately saline to very saline water in their downgradient parts, where the aquifer is hydraulically connected to seawater of a sodium chloride type. Water in the mixing zone between fresh and saline water in these coastal aquifers commonly is a sodium bicarbonate type. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water from unconsolidated-deposit aquifers are less than 400 milligrams per liter in most places. An exception is the Copper River Lowland, where dissolvedsolids concentrations in water from shallow and deep wells, and from some springs, exceed the 500 milligrams per liter recommended for drinking water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The large concentrations of dissolved solids in water from the Copper River Lowland reflect the upward movement of saline water from marine sediments underlying the unconsolidated deposits. Water from the aquifers in unconsolidated deposits is hard to moderately hard and, thus, may require treatment for some uses. Concentrations of iron in water from these aquifers are objectionable in many places, but the iron is easily removed from the water by inexpensive treatment. Iron concentrations in excess of 1,000 micrograms per liter are common. Locally, excessive concentrations of dissolved manganese and arsenic are reported in water from these aquifers. Groundwater contamination from human activities can take place rapidly, and shallow aquifers such as those in unconsolidated deposits are particularly susceptible to contamination. Contamination related to human activities is categorized as being from a point source or a nonpoint source. A point source is a specific local site such as an underground storage tank containing wastes, petroleum products, or chemicals; a landfill; a storage pond, pit, or lagoon; a spill of hazardous chemicals or petroleum products; or a disposal or injection well receiving municipal or industrial wastes. Nonpoint contamination sources are large-scale and can extend over hundreds of acres. Examples of nonpoint sources are: agricultural activities, such as applying fertilizer or chemicals to fields; urban areas with concentrations of septic tanks and cesspools; encroachment of saltwater or highly mineralized geothermal water; mining operations; oilfields and associated tank farms; and salt from highway deicing. The chemical quality of water from bedrock aquifers in Alaska is known from a few areas where dispersed residential wells have been drilled away from centralized water-distribution systems. In the vicinity of Fairbanks, water from wells completed in bedrock is generally a calcium bicarbonate type and usually is hard, especially on the lower slopes. Locally, concentrations of arsenic and nitrate in excess of the recommended Federal drinking-water standards are reported.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-88
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Water of chemical quality suitable for most uses is reported from wells completed in bedrock aquifers in the Anchorage-Eagle River area and in coastal communities bordering the Kenai and the Kodiak Mountains. However, water from wells completed in coal-bearing Tertiary strata in the Cook Inlet Basin commonly contains objectionable concentrations of iron and hydrogen sulfide. 3.7.6.4 Groundwater Withdrawals in the Northwest. 3.7.6.4.1 Alaska Aquifer Withdrawals Although surface water is abundant in Alaska, many of the streams, rivers, and lakes are covered with ice for much of the year. In addition, streams fed by glaciers transport glacial silt which gives the water a milky appearance and renders it unsuitable for many uses unless the silt is removed by flocculation. Accordingly, groundwater is an important source of supply, especially in the zones where permafrost is discontinuous or absent. Total fresh ground-water withdrawals in Alaska during 1990 were about 63 million gallons per day. About 54 percent of this amount, or about 34 million gallons per day, was withdrawn for public supply. About 15 million gallons per day, or about 24 percent of the total withdrawals, were pumped for domestic and commercial use. Withdrawals for industrial, mining, and thermoelectric power use accounted for almost all the remainder of the water pumped. Only about 0.2 million gallons per day, or less than one-half of one percent, of the water withdrawn was used for agricultural purposes. About 48 million gallons per day of saline groundwater was withdrawn for mining use during 1990. Table 3.7-6 shows the groundwater withdrawals for the Northwest Region broken down by water-use category.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-89
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Table 3.7-6
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD
Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties - Northwest
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD
STATE
COUNTY
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD
AK
YukonKoyukuk Division ALASKA TOTALS
0.18 0.18
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.21 0.21
0.00 0.00
2005 Data downloaded from http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/, downloaded 16-Sep-2010 Information reported in USGS Circular 1344 (Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A., 2009, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 p.)
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-90
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.7
Other Western Interior
3.7.7.1 Western Interior Plains Aquifer System
The Western Interior Plains aquifer system consists of water-yielding dolomite, limestone, and sandstone containing no freshwater. The Western Interior Plains aquifer system consists of lower aquifer units in rocks of Ordovician and Cambrian age, a shale confining unit of Mississippian and Devonian age, and an upper aquifer unit of Mississippian limestone. The thickness of the aquifer system (including the confining unit) ranges from less than 500 feet to more than 3,000 feet. The aquifer system is thin or absent on structural uplifts and is thickest in down-warps. For example, the thick area in southwestern Kansas is on the northern flank of the Anadarko Basin, and the thick area along the Missouri River is on the southern flank of the Forest City Basin. The aquifer system is thin or missing in western Nebraska and central Kansas atop the Chadron and the Cambridge Arches and the central Kansas Uplift and is locally thin or absent in eastern Kansas on the Nemaha Uplift. Figure 3.7-7 illustrates the general extent of the aquifers making up the Other Western Interior Region aquifer system.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-91
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-92
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.7-7 Other Western Interior Aquifers
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-93
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.7.7.2 Pre-mining Groundwater Flow. Regional ground-water movement in the aquifer system is southeastward to eastward. Much of the water discharges from the aquifer system in the transition zone between the Western Interior Plains and the Ozark Plateaus aquifer systems; saline groundwater from the Western Interior Plains aquifer system discharges to springs and streams in Henry and Saline Counties, Missouri. Water is thought to move very slowly through the aquifer system. 3.7.7.3 Pre-Mining Groundwater Quality Dissolved-solids concentrations of water in the Western Interior Plains aquifer system are greater than 1,000 milligrams per liter everywhere. In thick, deeply buried parts of the aquifer system, dissolved-solids concentrations of more than 200,000 milligrams per liter have been reported. The large concentrations are due, in part, to the slow movement of groundwater in the aquifer system. The slower the water moves, the longer it is in contact with aquifer minerals and the more mineral material it is able to dissolve. 3.7.7.4 Groundwater Withdrawals in Western Interior Plains Little water is withdrawn from the Western Interior Plains aquifer system because the aquifer system is deeply buried and contains highly mineralized water. Locally, deeply buried parts of the aquifer system contain oil and gas, and some brine that is a by-product of hydrocarbon production injected into disposal wells, which are completed in permeable parts of the system.
Table 3.7-7 shows the groundwater withdrawals for the Other Western Interior Region broken down by water-use category.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-94
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment
Table 3.7-7
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.20
Groundwater Usage in Coal Producing Counties – Other Western Interior
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00
STATE
COUNTY
AR
Sebastian ARKANSAS TOTALS
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.51
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.23
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.94
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00
0.20
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.94
0.00
STATE
COUNTY
KS KS
Bourbon Linn KANSAS TOTALS
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.01 0.01
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.02 0.00 0.02
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.02 0.01 0.03
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00
STATE
COUNTY
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.04 0.04
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.28 0.28
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.13 0.13
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.45 0.45
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00
MO
Bates MISSOURI TOTALS
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-95
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment
STATE
COUNTY
OK OK OK OK OK
Craig Haskell Le Flore Okmulgee Rogers OKLAHOMA TOTALS
Public Supply Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.28 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.44
Domestic Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.07 0.45 0.54 0.00 0.47 1.53
Industrial Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Irrigation Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.64
Livestock Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.23 0.23 0.99 0.09 0.19 1.73
Aquaculture Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mining Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.81 0.15 1.02
Thermo electric Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Fresh Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.58 0.68 2.33 0.09 0.66 4.34
Total Saline Groundwater Withdrawals MGD 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.81 0.15 1.02
2005 Data downloaded from http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/, downloaded 16-Sep-2010 Information reported in USGS Circular 1344 (Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A., 2009, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 p.)
For Official Use Only - Deliberative Process Material FIRST WORKING DRAFT – DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI AND COOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES 3-96
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.8
3.8.0
WATER RESOURCES PLANNING
Background.
The purpose of this section is to describe, for each region, the existing water supply resources and demand, current water supply availability and quality, and the baseline conditions of water supply resources in terms of quality and quantity. This section focuses on water supply as a resource for public and private use and consumption within the seven major coal resource areas. For discussion of current ground and surface water features, refer to Sections 3.6 Surface Water Hydrology, and 3.7 Groundwater Hydrology. For discussion on contaminant transport through natural water systems, refer to Section 3.9 Chemical Contaminant and Radionuclide Transport.
3.8.0.1 Water Supply Planning Water supply master planning comprises a strategic long term plan used for implementing water system improvements to meet the future needs of a region. This process involves investigating the development of and/or the expansion of new or existing water supplies for future populations. Water supply master planning may involved a 10-year or greater lead time, and is typically performed in several phases in order to accomplish specific milestones over time. Water supply planning includes, but is not limited to the following tasks: Evaluation of existing water supply system capabilities; Identification of future growth and planned land use; Water supply projections for 20 years or more; Investigation of new source development and existing system improvements; Cost analysis for planned improvements.
Due to the extensive preparation involved in the development or expansion of water supply resources, it is not feasible to include a discussion of the water supply planning needs for each region. 3.8.0.2 Water Supply Resources and Demand Water supply resources include groundwater and surface water. Groundwater is typically withdrawn via wells from deep aquifers or from shallow subsurface groundwater typically found in areas adjacent to rivers and streams. Surface water supply resources include direct withdrawals from reservoirs, rivers, lakes, and streams. Water is typically supplied by public and private utilities. In some cases, users may be self supplied, such as is often the case in
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-97
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
agricultural and some residential use, in which the users own their wells. Each region has its own portfolio of water supply resources and suppliers. Coal mining may therefore have variable impact mechanisms on water supply depending on the prevailing types of resources and suppliers. Water use may vary in each region in terms of total usage and how water supply is distributed, including public supply, domestic, commercial/industrial, agricultural, mining, and thermoelectric uses. The use categories are defined below (Templin et al 1997). For the purposes of this report, commercial and industrial uses are defined as one category. Irrigation, livestock, and aquaculture uses are also combined, and defined as agricultural use within this report. Public water supply refers to water withdrawn by public and private water suppliers and delivered to users. Public water suppliers provide water to domestic, commercial, and industrial users, to facilities generating thermoelectric power, for public use, and occasionally for mining and irrigation. A public water supply is a public or private water system that provides water to at least 25 people or has a minimum of 15 service connections. Domestic water use includes water used for household purposes such as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes and dishes, flushing toilets, car washing, and watering lawns and gardens. Water used for domestic purposes may be obtained from either a public water supply system, or from private, self supply wells. For the purposes of the discussion below, however, domestic water usage is considered to include private, self supply only. Commercial water use includes water used by commercial facilities such as hotels, motels, restaurants, office buildings, government and military facilities, hospitals, educational institutions, and retail sales stores. Industrial water use includes water used to manufacture products such as steel, chemical, and paper, as well as water used in petroleum and metals refining. It does not include power generation for sale to other users, mining of minerals, or the extraction of crude petroleum and gases, which are included in other water-use categories. Mining water use includes water used for the extraction and on-site processing of naturally occurring minerals including coal, ores, petroleum, and natural gas. The mining category includes product incorporation during dust control, tailings disposal, slurry conveyance, and drying; wastewater treatment; deliveries of reclaimed wastewater; return flow; and dewatering. Irrigation water use is by far the largest use of water diverted from streams or withdrawn from aquifers in the western United States (Solley August 1997). Total annual irrigation water use can vary depending on many factors including climate, foreign trade, commodity prices, production costs, cost efficiency of irrigation, and changes in irrigation technology. Livestock water use includes water used to raise cattle, sheep, goats, hogs, and poultry, but excludes horses, which are considered part of animal specialties water use.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-98
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Aquaculture includes water used for farming of organisms that live in water, such as fish, excluding fish hatcheries (commercial water use), shrimp, and other shellfish. Thermoelectric power generation includes water used in the generation of electric power when the following fuel types are used: fossil, nuclear, biomass, solid waste, or geothermal energy. A portion of the total domestic and agricultural water used is self-supplied. Self-supplied water, primarily withdrawn from private groundwater wells, is typically used for household and farming/irrigation applications. Private wells are most common in rural areas not served by municipal water supplies. There are over 15.6 million users of private water supply wells (wells that serve 1-5 homes) in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). Unlike municipal water supply, which is monitored for water quality and typically treated prior to distribution, selfsupplied water is unregulated by the USEPA and well owners take full responsibility for water quality, availability, and maintenance of their wells. Private wells can be influenced by local and regional impacts, both due to natural conditions and human activity. Because they are not routinely monitored or treated, they are more vulnerable to water quality and supply changes than a public water supply system. 3.8.0.3 Baseline Water Resource & Supply Conditions Mountaintop removal and valley fill alter the topography of land, which can impact surrounding watersheds and water resources due to their alteration of land. As discussed in the 2008 DEIS, SMCRA sections 515(b)(10) and 516(b)(11) establish the general performance standard for protecting the prevailing hydrologic balance for surface mining and for underground mining, respectively. These sections require surface coal mining and reclamation operations to “minimize the disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance at the mine site and in associated offsite areas and to the quality and quantity of water in surface and ground-water systems both during and after surface coal mining operations and during reclamation….” However, the legislative history of SMCRA acknowledges that “the total prevention of adverse hydrologic effects from mining is impossible and thus the bill sets attainable standards to protect the hydrologic balance of impacted areas within the limits of feasibility…” Long term hydrologic impacts can include:
Removal of natural vegetation from mountaintops causes excess runoff, erosion, flooding, and increased solids loadings to surrounding waterways. Alteration of slopes and natural drainage corridors alter the pathways of rivers and streams. Increased runoff velocities and alteration of stream corridors can change the quantity of water available to recharge groundwater or surface water sources. Increases solids and fines loadings in runoff may clog soil pore spaces, reducing groundwater recharge capability. Mining below the groundwater table can cause aquifer disruption by lowering the groundwater levels and through dewatering activities, which may reduce supply.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-99
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Lateral drilling practices can create a preferential pathway, changing the course of groundwater flow. Mine floor compaction by the placement of removed rock and soil can alter the flow of water through an aquifer causing a change in hydraulic conductivity and direction. Areas of spoil fill material may not match the particle size distribution and compaction of the natural geology. This will alter both surface drainage, and groundwater flow. In addition it may cause the loss of natural connectivity between surface and groundwater flow. Water consumption by mining activities may decrease available supply.
As was discussed in Sections 3.7 and 3.8, the coal resource areas evaluated in this document contain a variety of hydrologic conditions. These factors contribute to the quality and productivity of the various surface and groundwater systems within each region. Sources of water supply demand their end uses are further discussed in the regional subsections of this Chapter.
3.8.1
Appalachian Basin
3.8.1.1 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and Demand
The combined population of this region is approximately 21,397,000. The region is served by approximately 9% groundwater sources, and 91% surface water sources. Water resources in this region are used for public supply, domestic usage, agriculture, commercial, industry, mining, and power (thermoelectric). Table 3.8-1 lists the total water supply withdrawals from surface and groundwater sources in five year increments from 1985 to 2005 in millions of gallons per day (MGD). The total water usage for the year 2005 was 27,512 MGD. Table 3.8-1 Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals (MGD) in the Appalachian Basin Groundwater 2369 (9%) 969 (4%) 1396 (5%) 2007(8%) 1225 (5%) Surface Water 25143 (91%) 25203 (96%) 23990 (95%) 22723 (92%) 25328 (95%) Total 27512 26172 25386 24730 26553
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c GW: Groundwater; SW: Surface Water
Based on 2005 USGS data, water resources in this region are used for approximately 77.6% thermoelectric, 9.5% public supply, 8.7% industrial, 2.7% agricultural, and 1% or less domestic and mining. There was no reported commercial use. Figure 3.8-1 shows the breakdown of percentage of water used by category for the year 2005.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-100
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.8-1 Total Water Usage by Category, Appalachian Basin, 2005
3.8.1.2 Groundwater Groundwater sources currently account for approximately 9% of the total water usage of this region. Thermoelectric utilizes the highest percentage of groundwater withdrawals, at 50%. Approximately 21% of groundwater withdrawn is used for public supply and 11% is used for domestic purposes. Industrial uses approximately 8%, agriculture 5.5%, and mining 3%. No commercial usage was reported. Table 3.8-2 shows a breakdown of groundwater usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005. The primary aquifer systems and sources of groundwater in this region are the Appalachian Plateau, Piedmont and Blue Ridge, and the Valley and Ridge aquifers. Precipitation provides recharge to these aquifers, especially in the mountainous regions which receive the most precipitation and runoff (USGS 2010a). Within the Appalachian Basin, a widespread water table decline has not been identified, but isolated areas of 40 foot water table declines have been identified (Reilly et al July 2008). This would indicate that, for the most part, stress on the aquifer is confined to isolated areas and is not widespread. 3.8.1.3 Surface Water Surface water sources currently account for approximately 91% of the total water usage of this region. Approximately 80% of surface water withdrawn is utilized for thermoelectric.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-101
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Approximately 8.5% each are used for public supply and industrial demand. Agricultural uses 2.4%. Less than 1% of surface water withdrawals is used for mining and domestic purposes. No commercial usage was reported. Table 3.8-2 shows a breakdown of surface water usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005. Table 3.8-2 Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals by Category (MGD) in the Appalachian Basin
Domestic Agricultural Industrial GW SW GW SW GW SW 259 3 133 614 198 2182 160 2 25 75 228 2834 291 0 113 217 224 3205 250 0 74 78 314 1742 270 0 106 53 198 2904 Mining Thermoelectric Commercial GW SW GW SW GW SW 77 78 1191 20162 NA NA 0 0 7 20246 NA NA 130 101 49 18441 45 69 843 123 8 19052 66 9 219 67 21 20540 18 0
Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985
Public Supply GW SW 511 2104 549 2046 544 1957 452 1719 396 1776
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c GW: Groundwater; SW: Surface Water
3.8.1.4 Domestic Self Supplied Water Regional drinking water withdrawals are represented by the public supply and domestic withdrawal data. Domestic withdrawals represent estimates of self supplied private withdrawals for residential use. According to 2005 USGS data as presented in Table 3.8-2 above, 73% of total drinking water withdrawals are from surface water sources. 80% of public water supply withdrawals are from surface water. Additionally, since 1985, domestic water withdrawals have remained largely stagnant; whereas, public water supply withdrawals have increased 17%, indicating that regional drinking water demand is increasing. A review of USGS water use data for the years 1985 – 2000 indicate that the total proportion of the population supplied by a public water supplier is increasing while the total population and proportion of the population that is self-supplied is decreasing, as summarized in Table 3.8-3 (Population data for 2000 was excluded, as it appeared data was missing, making the numbers artificially low). However, in 2005, the most recent data available, there was an estimated regional domestic self supply population of nearly 3.5 million, 19% of the total regional population. This self supply population, as demonstrated in Table 3.8-3, relies primarily on private wells for their water supply. Because these wells are not routinely monitored or treated, this population is particularly susceptible to changes in groundwater quality and supply. Table 3.8-3 Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) Self Supply Population 3445 (19%) NA 4129 (23%) 4130 (24%) 5061 (28%) Public Supply Population 14753 (81%) NA 13723 (67%) 13261 (66%) 12751 (62%)
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-102
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.8.1.5 Baseline Water Quality Conditions A review of the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) for Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations for the region for the years 1994 – 2009 indicate that the number of total annual violations has been generally increasing since 2000, as summarized by Table 3.84. These violations represent exceedances of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of regulated constituents, as well as insufficient monitoring procedures and treatment techniques. Using SDWA violations as a surrogate for regional drinking water quality, this data would indicate that drinking water quality in the region has been declining since 2001. Additionally, the data indicate that the number of annual violations at groundwater (GW) systems in the region have remained largely stagnant, increasing by 11% from 2001 to 2009; whereas, violations at surface water (SW) dependent systems have increased by 107% from 2001 to 2009. This may indicate that water quality in GW systems has remained largely the same; while water quality in SW systems has declined. However, it must be considered that the number of SDWA violations for the region may not necessarily accurately represent regional drinking water quality, since the number of violations may be impacted by various factors, including variability in enforcement efforts. It also must be noted that, for the most part, the bulk of the violations are associated with MCL exceedances of coliform (TCR) and disinfection by-products (DBPs), which are largely unrelated to coal and other industrial discharges. Table 3.8-4 Year 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 Regional Health-based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations GW Systems 170 205 245 191 94 161 159 151 152 176 224 298 249 283 259 281 Number of Violations SW Systems 283 285 290 299 229 133 116 81 81 103 102 121 180 206 240 404 Total 483 490 535 490 323 294 275 252 233 279 326 410 429 489 499 685
Source: EPA August 18, 2010 GW: Groundwater; SW: Surface Water
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-103
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.8.2
Colorado Plateau
3.8.2.1 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and Demand
The combined population of this region is approximately 3,119,000. The region is served by approximately 17% groundwater sources, and 83% surface water sources. Water resources in this region are used for public supply, domestic usage, agriculture, commercial, industry, mining, and power (thermoelectric). Table 3.8-5 lists the total water supply withdrawals from surface and groundwater sources in five year increments from 1985 to 2005 in millions of gallons per day (MGD). The total water usage for the year 2005 was 9,950 MGD. Table 3.8-5 Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals (MGD) in the Colorado Plateau Groundwater 1717 (17%) 1729 (18%) 1616 (17%) 1581 (18%) 1556 (16%) Surface Water 8233 (83%) 7882 (82%) 7990 (83%) 7392 (82%) 8019 (84%) Total 9950 9611 9606 8973 9575
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c
Based on 2005 USGS data, water resources in this region are predominantly used for agriculture (91%), with 5% for public supply, 2% for thermoelectric, and less than 1% each for domestic, commercial, industry, and mining. Figure 3.8-2 shows the breakdown of percentage of water used by category for the year 2005.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-104
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.8-2 Total Water Usage by Category, Colorado Plateau Basin, 2005
3.8.2.2 Groundwater Groundwater sources currently account for approximately 17% of the total water usage of this region. Approximately 70% of groundwater withdrawn is utilized by agriculture. Approximately 22% of groundwater withdrawn is utilized by public supply. Only 2% of groundwater is utilized for domestic purposes. Table 3.8-6 shows a breakdown of groundwater usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005. The primary aquifer system and source of groundwater in this region are the Colorado Plateaus aquifers. The most productive water yielding aquifers within this system are the Uinta-Animas aquifer, the Mesaverde aquifer, the Dakota-Glen Canyon aquifer system, and the Coconino-De Chelly aquifer (Robson and Banta 1995). Water recharge to aquifers in this region generally occurs in upland areas which receive more precipitation than the lower elevation areas. Within the Colorado Plateau Basin, a widespread water table decline has not been identified, but isolated areas of 40 foot water table declines have been identified (Reilly et al July 2008). This would indicate that, for the most part, stress on the aquifer is confined to isolated areas and is not widespread. 3.8.2.3 Surface Water Surface water sources currently account for approximately 83% of the total water usage of this region. Approximately 96% of surface water withdrawn is utilized by agriculture. Approximately 2% of surface water withdrawn is utilized by thermoelectric power. Public
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-105
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Supply only utilizes approximately 1.8% of surface water. Surface water is not utilized for domestic purposes throughout the region. Table 3.8-6 shows a breakdown of surface water usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005. Table 3.8-6
Public Supply GW SW 384 150 374 171 325 139 314 115 275 113
Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals by Category (MGD) in the Colorado Plateau
Domestic Agriculture Industrial Mining Thermoelectric Commercial GW 44 44 27 33 23 SW 172 197 149 178 137 GW N/A N/A 18 12 9 SW N/A N/A 1 1 0
Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985
GW SW GW 41 0 1195 42 0 1220 31 0 1156 28 0 1120 33 0 1112
SW GW SW GW SW 7898 34 9 19 3 7501 35 11 14 2 7693 26 6 33 2 6964 31 131 43 3 7747 38 6 66 16
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c GW: Groundwater; SW: Surface Water
3.8.2.4 Domestic Self Supplied Water Regional drinking water withdrawals are represented by the public supply and domestic withdrawal data. Domestic withdrawals represent estimates of self supplied private withdrawals for residential use. According to 2005 USGS data as presented in Table 3.8-6 above, 26% of total drinking water withdrawals are from surface water sources. 28% of public water supply withdrawals are from surface water. Additionally, since 1985, domestic water withdrawals have increased 46%, and public water supply withdrawals have increased 24%, indicating that regional drinking water demand is increasing. A review of USGS water use data for the years 1985 – 2000 indicate that the total proportion of the population supplied by a public water supplier is increasing while the total population and proportion of the population that is self-supplied is decreasing, as summarized in Table 3.8-7 (Population data for 2000 was excluded, as it appeared data was missing, making the numbers artificially low). However, in 2005, the most recent data available, there was an estimated regional domestic self supply population of nearly 0.4 million, 13% of the total regional population. This self supply population, as demonstrated in Table 3.8-3, relies primarily on private wells for their water supply. Because these wells are not routinely monitored or treated, this population is particularly susceptible to changes in groundwater quality and supply. Table 3.8-7 Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) Self Supply Population 408 (13%) NA 396 (16%) 373 (17%) 406 (20%) Public Supply Population 2710 (87%) NA 2056 (84%) 1792 (83%) 1629 (80%)
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-106
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.8.2.5 Baseline Water Quality Conditions A review of the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) for Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations for the region for the years 1994 – 2009 indicate that the number of total annual violations has been generally increasing since 2000, as summarized by Table 3.88. These violations represent exceedances of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of regulated constituents, as well as insufficient monitoring procedures and treatment techniques. Using SDWA violations as a surrogate for regional drinking water quality, this data would indicate that drinking water quality in the region has been declining since 2001. Additionally, the data indicate that the number of annual violations at groundwater (GW) systems in the region have increased by 250% from 2001 to 2009; violations at surface water (SW) dependent systems have increased by 145% from 2001 to 2009. This may indicate that water quality in both GW and SW systems have declined. However, it must be considered that the number of SDWA violations for the region may not necessarily accurately represent regional drinking water quality, since the number of violations may be impacted by various factors, including variability in enforcement efforts. It also must be noted that, for the most part, the bulk of the violations are associated with MCL exceedances of coliform (TCR) and disinfection by-products (DBPs), which are largely unrelated to coal and other industrial discharges. Table 3.8-8 Year 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 Regional Health-Based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations GW Systems 220 180 131 136 138 52 79 112 88 117 83 150 100 114 93 108 Number of Violations SW Systems 64 66 36 50 61 23 25 46 44 22 56 29 24 36 31 46 Total 284 246 167 186 199 75 104 158 132 139 139 179 124 150 124 154
Source: EPA August 18, 2010 GW: Groundwater; SW: Surface Water
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-107
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.8.3
Gulf Region
3.8.3.1 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and Demand
The combined population of this region is approximately 20,133,000. The region is served by approximately 41% groundwater sources, and 59% surface water sources. Water resources in this region are used for public supply, domestic usage, agriculture, commercial, industry, mining, and power (thermoelectric). Table 3.8-9 lists the total water supply withdrawals from surface and groundwater sources in five year increments from 1985 to 2005 in millions of gallons per day (MGD). The total water usage for the year 2005 was 34,504 MGD. Table 3.8-9 Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals in the Gulf Coast Basin (MGD) Groundwater 14146 (40%) 13653 (42%) 11553 (38%) 10144 (39%) 8637 (35%) Surface Water 20358 (60%) 19239 (58%) 18845 (62%) 15627 (61%) 15793 (65%) Total 34504 32892 30398 25771 24430
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c
Based on 2005 USGS data, water resources in this region are used for approximately equal parts agriculture and thermoelectric (41.9 and 42.4% respectively), 9.6% public supply, 5% mining, less than 1% domestic, and 0.3% for mining. Figure 3.8-3 shows the breakdown of percentage of water used by category for the year 2005. Figure 3.8-3 Total Water Usage by Category, Gulf Coast Basin, 2005
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-108
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.8.3.2 Groundwater Groundwater sources currently account for approximately 41% of the total water usage of this region. About 82% of groundwater withdrawn is utilized by agriculture. Approximately 13% of groundwater withdrawn is utilized by public supply. Only 2% of the groundwater withdrawn is utilized for domestic purposes. Table 3.8-10 shows a breakdown of groundwater usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005. Four major groundwater aquifer systems are found in this region; the surficial Aquifer System (Mississippi River Valley), the coastal lowlands aquifer system (southeastern Texas, Louisiana, and southern Mississippi), the Mississippi embayment aquifer (Mississippi, eastern Arkansas, Louisiana), and the Texas coastal uplands aquifer system (southeastern Texas). Precipitation is the ultimate source of water that recharges the major aquifers in this region (Miller 1990, Renken 1998, Ryder 1996). 3.8.3.3 Surface Water Surface water sources currently account for approximately 59% of the total water usage of this region. About 71% of surface water withdrawn is utilized by thermoelectric. Approximately 14% of surface water withdrawn is utilized by agriculture. Eight percent is utilized by public supply and no surface water in the region is utilized for domestic purposes. Table 3.8-10 shows a breakdown of surface water usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005. Table 3.8-10 Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals by Category (MGD) in the Gulf Coast Basin
Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Public Supply Domestic Agriculture GW SW GW SW GW SW 1158 1771 1536 261 0 2890 0 1100 1862 1716 113 0 2912 1 1636 1506 161 0 8958 3677 1636 1159 133 0 7686 3673 1536 1087 141 0 6371 3328 Industrial Mining Thermoelectric Commercial GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW 418 1314 530 1644 614 1342 521 1128 456 1222 36 53 51 33 35 68 65 59 56 9 80 94 91 75 89 14550 12902 12235 9487 10139 N/A N/A 42 60 9 N/A N/A 26 124 8
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c GW: Groundwater, SW: Surface Water
3.8.3.4 Domestic Self Supplied Water Regional drinking water withdrawals are represented by the public supply and domestic withdrawal data. Domestic withdrawals represent estimates of self supplied private withdrawals for residential use. According to 2005 USGS data as presented in Table 3.8-10 above, 43% of total drinking water withdrawals are from surface water sources. 46% of public water supply withdrawals are from surface water. Additionally, since 1985, domestic water withdrawals have increased 85%, and public water supply withdrawals have increased 26%, indicating that regional drinking water demand is increasing.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-109
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
A review of USGS water use data for the years 1985 – 2000 indicate that the total proportion of the population supplied by a public water supplier and the proportion of the population that is self-supplied is stagnant, as summarized in Table 3.8-11 (Population data for 2000 was excluded, as it appeared data was missing, making the numbers artificially low). However, in 2005, the most recent data available, there was an estimated regional domestic self supply population of nearly 2.5 million, 13% of the total regional population. This self supply population, as demonstrated in Table 3.8-3, relies primarily on private wells for their water supply. Because these wells are not routinely monitored or treated, this population is particularly susceptible to changes in groundwater quality and supply. Table 3.8-11 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Self Supply Population 2553 (13%) NA 2039 (12%) 1935 (12%) 2027 (12%) Public Supply Population 17580 (87%) NA 15576 (88%) 14585 (88%) 14318 (88%)
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c
3.8.3.5 Baseline Water Quality Conditions A review of the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) for Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations for the region for the years 1994 – 2009 indicate that the number of total annual violations has been generally increasing since 2000, as summarized by Table 3.812. These violations represent exceedances of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of regulated constituents, as well as insufficient monitoring procedures and treatment techniques. Using SDWA violations as a surrogate for regional drinking water quality, this data would indicate that drinking water quality in the region has been declining since 2001. Additionally, the data indicate that the number of annual violations at groundwater (GW) systems in the region have remained increased by 278% from 2001 to 2009; violations at surface water (SW) dependent systems have increased by 814% from 2001 to 2009. This may indicate that water quality in both GW and SW systems has declined. However, it must be considered that the number of SDWA violations for the region may not necessarily accurately represent regional drinking water quality, since the number of violations may be impacted by various factors, including variability in enforcement efforts. It also must be noted that, for the most part, the bulk of the violations are associated with MCL exceedances of coliform (TCR) and disinfection by-products (DBPs), which are largely unrelated to coal and other industrial discharges. Table 3.8-12 Regional Health-based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations Year 2009 GW Systems 707 Number of Violations SW Systems Total 228
935
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-110
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Year 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994
GW Systems 636 588 581 584 200 274 280 254 310 244 279 292 347 413 377
Number of Violations SW Systems Total 301 937 272 860 336 917 559 1143 146 346 46 320 47 327 28 282 33 343 36 280 36 315 37 329 63 410 97 510 81 458
Source: EPA August 18, 2010 GW: Groundwater, SW: Surface Water
3.8.4
Illinois Basin
3.8.4.1 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and Demand
The combined population of this region is approximately 7,481,000. The region is served by approximately 6% groundwater sources, and 94% surface water sources. Table 3.8-13 lists the total water supply withdrawals from surface and groundwater sources in five year increments from 1985 to 2005 in millions of gallons per day (MGD). The total water usage for the year 2005 was 17,529 MGD. Table 3.8-13 Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals in the Illinois Basin (MGD) Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Groundwater 1016 (6%) 719 (5%) 829 (4%) 731 (4%) 635 (5%) Surface Water 16513 (94%) 15128 (95%) 18827 (96%) 16985 (96%) 12967 (95%) Total 17529 15847 19656 17716 13602
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c. GW: Groundwater, SW: Surface Water
86% of the water resources in this region are used for thermoelectric applications, 6% for public supply, 4% for industrial, 3% for agriculture, and 1% or less for domestic, mining, and commercial usage. Figure 3.8-4 shows the breakdown of percentage of water used by category for the year 2005.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-111
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.8-4 Total Water Usage by Category, Illinois Basin, 2005
3.8.4.2 Groundwater Groundwater sources currently account for approximately 6% of the total water usage of this region. About 43% of groundwater withdrawn is utilized by agriculture. Approximately 31% of groundwater withdrawn is utilized by public supply. Only 0.1% of groundwater withdrawn is utilized for domestic purposed throughout the region. Table 3.8-14 shows a breakdown of groundwater usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005. The major aquifer system in this region can be categorized as the central lowland, Pennsylvanian aquifer, which is part of the regional surficial aquifer system. The source of the freshwater in this region is precipitation, primarily rain and snow (Lloyd and Lyke 1995). 3.8.4.3 Surface Water Surface water sources currently account for approximately 94% of the total water usage of this region. Approximately 91% of surface water withdrawn is utilized by thermoelectric. Approximately 4% of surface water withdrawn is utilized by public supply and no surface water withdrawn is utilized for domestic purposes throughout the region. Table 3.8-14 shows a breakdown of surface water usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-112
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Table 3.8-14 Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals by Category (MGD) in the Illinois Basin
Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Public Domestic Agriculture Industrial Mining Thermoelectric Commercial Supply GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW 314 703 89 1 439 43 139 630 20 85 16 15051 N/A N/A 295 721 111 0 131 10 175 660 1 25 6 13712 N/A N/A 309 669 103 0 179 21 196 622 12 84 17 17371 13 60 284 660 85 0 103 23 184 576 12 94 14 15594 49 38 240 328 102 0 91 6 150 503 18 104 12 12026 22 0
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c GW: Groundwater, SW: Surface Water
3.8.4.4 Domestic Self Supplied Water Regional drinking water withdrawals are represented by the public supply and domestic withdrawal data. Domestic withdrawals represent estimates of self supplied private withdrawals for residential use. According to 2005 USGS data as presented in Table 3.8-14 above, 64% of total drinking water withdrawals are from surface water sources. 69% of public water supply withdrawals are from surface water. Additionally, since 1985, domestic water withdrawals have decreased 12%, and public water supply withdrawals have increased 79%, indicating that regional drinking water demand is increasing. A review of USGS water use data for the years 1985 – 2000 indicate that the total proportion of the population supplied by a public water supplier is decreasing while the total proportion of the population that is self-supplied is relatively stagnant, as summarized in Table 3.8-15. However, in 2005, the most recent data available, there was an estimated regional domestic self supply population of nearly 1.1 million, 14% of the total regional population. This self supply population, as demonstrated in Table 3.8-3, relies primarily on private wells for their water supply. Because these wells are not routinely monitored or treated, this population is particularly susceptible to changes in groundwater quality and supply. Table 3.8-15 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Self Supply Population 1058 (14%) 1268 (17%) 1364 (19%) 1275 (18%) 1302 (18%) Public Supply Population 6424 (86%) 5399 (74%) 5720 (81%) 5686 (82%) 5799 (82%)
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c
3.8.4.5 Baseline Water Quality Conditions A review of the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) for Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations for the region for the years 1994 – 2009 indicate that the number of total annual violations has been generally decreasing since 2000, as summarized by Table 3.8For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-113
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
16. These violations represent exceedances of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of regulated constituents, as well as insufficient monitoring procedures and treatment techniques. Using SDWA violations as a surrogate for regional drinking water quality, this data would indicate that drinking water quality in the region has slightly improved overall since 2001. Data indicate that the number of annual violations at groundwater (GW) systems in the region have decreased by 35% from 2001 to 2009; whereas, violations at surface water (SW) dependent systems have increased by 162% from 2001 to 2009. This may indicate that water quality in GW systems has improved slightly; while water quality in SW systems has declined. The increase in SW quality violations could reflect the significant increase in use of SW for drinking water from 1985 to 2009. However, it must be considered that the number of SDWA violations for the region may not necessarily accurately represent regional drinking water quality, since the number of violations may be impacted by various factors, including variability in enforcement efforts. It also must be noted that, for the most part, the bulk of the violations are associated with MCL exceedances of coliform (TCR) and disinfection by-products (DBPs), which are largely unrelated to coal and other industrial discharges. Table 3.8-16 Regional Health-based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations Year 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 GW Systems 177 213 273 260 277 324 307 220 273 307 225 237 236 280 371 467 Number of Violations SW Systems 91 107 186 121 150 46 27 18 37 40 44 36 86 111 146 181 Total 268 320 459 381 427 370 334 238 310 347 269 273 322 391 517 648
Source: EPA August 18, 2010 GW: Groundwater, SW: Surface Water
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-114
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.8.5
Northern Rocky Mountain and Great Plains
3.8.5.1 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and Demand
The combined population of this region is approximately 5,668,000. The region is served by approximately 6% groundwater sources, and 94% surface water sources. Water resources in this region are used for public supply, domestic usage, agriculture, commercial, industry, mining, and power (thermoelectric). Table 3.8-17 lists the percentage of water supply used by category in 5 year increments from 1985 to 2005 in million gallons per day (MGD). The total freshwater usage for the year 2005 was 18,128 MGD. Table 3.8-17 Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals (MGD) in the Northern Rocky Mountains & Great Plains Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Groundwater 1087 (6%) 1054 (6%) 1193 (6%) 1380 (6%) 1369 (7%) Surface Water 17041 (94%) 15617 (94%) 18339 (94%) 20700 (94%) 17212 (93%) Total 18128 16671 19532 22080 18581
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c
Based on 2005 USGS data, water resources in this region are used for primarily for agriculture (86%), with 5% for public supply, and 1% or less for domestic and industrial. There is no reported water usage for commercial, mining or thermoelectric. Figure 3.8-5 shows the breakdown of percentage of water used by category for the year 2005.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-115
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.8-5 Water Usage by Category, N. Rocky Mountains & Great Plains, 2005
3.8.5.2 Groundwater Groundwater sources currently account for approximately 6% of the total water usage of this region. Approximately 69% of groundwater withdrawn is utilized by agriculture. Approximately 19% of groundwater withdrawn is utilized by Public Supply and only 4% of the groundwater is utilized for domestic purposes. Table 3.8-18 shows a breakdown of groundwater usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005. There are 2 major aquifer systems that serve as the primary source of groundwater for this region; the northern Great Plains and the upper Colorado River basin aquifer systems. The primary source of recharge to the regions groundwater aquifers is precipitation. Under natural conditions, ground-water levels in or near recharge areas throughout most of this region are highest in the spring as a result of recharge from snowmelt and rainfall (Robson and Banta 1995, Whitehead 1996). Within the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains, a widespread water table decline has not been identified, but isolated areas of 40 foot water table declines have been identified in Wyoming (Reilly et al July 2008). This would indicate that, for the most part, stress on the aquifer is confined to isolated areas and is not widespread. 3.8.5.3 Surface Water Surface water sources currently account for approximately 94% of the total water usage of this region. Approximately 87% of the surface water withdrawn is utilized by agriculture.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-116
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Thermoelectric utilizes approximately 8% of the surface water withdrawn and approximately 4% is utilized for public supply. Only a fraction of surface water is utilized for domestic purposes. Table 3.8-18 shows a breakdown of surface water usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005. Table 3.8-18 Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals (MGD) in the Northern Rocky Mountains & Great Plains
Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Public Supply Domestic Agriculture Industrial Mining Thermoelectric Commercial GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW 202 717 47 1 746 14835 39 83 45 25 8 1380 N/A N/A 166 844 67 1 699 13451 54 50 58 20 10 1251 N/A N/A 179 599 30 1 821 16537 60 42 93 26 10 1134 0 0 158 595 21 1 1030 17419 56 43 105 27 10 2615 0 0 181 679 24 1 977 15219 35 58 139 40 7 1210 6 5
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c GW: Groundwater, SW: Surface Water
3.8.5.4 Domestic Self Supplied Water Regional drinking water withdrawals are represented by the public supply and domestic withdrawal data. Domestic withdrawals represent estimates of self supplied private withdrawals for residential use. According to 2005 USGS data as presented in Table 3.8-18 above, 74% of total drinking water withdrawals are from surface water sources. 78% of public water supply withdrawals are from surface water. Additionally, since 1985, domestic water withdrawals have increased 92%, and public water supply withdrawals have increased 7%, indicating that regional drinking water demand is increasing. A review of USGS water use data for the years 1985 – 2000 indicate that the total proportion of the population supplied by a public water supplier and the total proportion of the population self supplied remained relatively stagnant, as summarized in Table 3.8-19. However, in 2005, the most recent data available, there was an estimated regional domestic self supply population of nearly 0.5 million, 10% of the total regional population. This self supply population, as demonstrated in Table 3.8-3, relies primarily on private wells for their water supply. Because these wells are not routinely monitored or treated, this population is particularly susceptible to changes in groundwater quality and supply. Table 3.8-19 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Self Supply Population 544 (10%) 683 (14%) 604 (13%) 492 (12%) 553 (14%) Public Supply Population 4798 (90%) 4223 (85%) 3887 (87%) 3538 (88%) 3540 (86%)
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-117
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.8.5.5 Baseline Water Quality Conditions A review of the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) for Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations for the region for the years 1994 – 2009 indicate that the number of total annual violations has been generally increasing since 2000, as summarized by Table 3.820. These violations represent exceedances of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of regulated constituents, as well as insufficient monitoring procedures and treatment techniques. Using SDWA violations as a surrogate for regional drinking water quality, this data would indicate that drinking water quality in the region has been declining since 2001. Additionally, the data indicate that the number of annual violations at groundwater (GW) systems in the region have remained largely stagnant, increasing by 269% from 2001 to 2009; whereas, violations at surface water (SW) dependent systems have increased by 243% from 2001 to 2009. This may indicate that water quality in both GW and SW systems have declined. The increase in violations could reflect the increase in use of both GW and SW for drinking water from 1985 to 2009. However, it must be considered that the number of SDWA violations for the region may not necessarily accurately represent regional drinking water quality, since the number of violations may be impacted by various factors, including variability in enforcement efforts. It also must be noted that, for the most part, the bulk of the violations are associated with MCL exceedances of coliform (TCR) and disinfection by-products (DBPs), which are largely unrelated to coal and other industrial discharges. Table 3.8-20 Regional Health-based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations Year 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994
Source: EPA August 18, 2010.
GW Systems 215 194 141 137 157 87 101 119 80 84 80 95 82 118 115 137
Number of Violations SW Systems 85 82 76 105 69 34 25 14 35 55 54 73 65 28 73 78
Total 300 276 217 242 226 121 126 133 115 134 134 168 147 146 188 215
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-118
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.8.6
Northwest
3.8.6.1 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and Demand
The combined population of this region is approximately 15,942,000. The region is served by approximately 31% groundwater sources, and 69% surface water sources. Water resources in this region are used for public supply, domestic usage, agriculture, commercial, industry, mining, and power (thermoelectric). Table 3.8-21 lists the total water supply withdrawals from surface and groundwater sources in five year increments from 1985 to 2005 in millions of gallons per day (MGD). The total water usage for the year 2005 was 14,955 MGD. Table 3.8-21 Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals (MGD) in the Northwest Basin Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Groundwater 4666 (31%) 6975 (40%) 6768 (38%) 5946 (34%) 6196 (37%) Surface Water 10290 (69%) 10320 (60%) 11173 (62%) 11375 (66%) 10333 (63%) Total 14956 17295 17941 17321 16529
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c
Based on 2005 USGS data, water resources in this region are used for primarily for agriculture (74%), with 21% for public supply, 2% domestic, 2% industrial, and 1% or less for thermoelectric, mining, and commercial. Figure 3.8-6 shows the breakdown of percentage of water used by category for the year 2005.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-119
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.8-6 Water Usage by Category, Northwest Basin, 2005
3.8.6.2 Groundwater Groundwater sources currently account for approximately 31% of the total water usage of this region. About 79% of groundwater withdrawn is utilized by agriculture. Approximately 13% of groundwater withdrawn is utilized by public supply and 6% of the groundwater withdrawn is used for domestic purposes. Table 3.8-22 shows a breakdown of groundwater usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005. The Puget-Williamette-Trough regional aquifer system is the primary groundwater source located within the coal bearing regions of Washington and Oregon. The Kenai Peninsula in southern Alaska contains both groundwater sources and coal reserves. Precipitation is the ultimate source of water that recharges the major aquifers in this region (Whitehead 1994). 3.8.6.3 Surface Water Surface water sources currently account for approximately 69% of the total water usage of this region. About 72% of surface water withdrawn is utilized by agriculture. Approximately 24% of surface water withdrawn is utilized by public supply. Only 0.2% of the surface water withdrawn is utilized for domestic purposes throughout the region. Table 3.8-22 shows a breakdown of surface water usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-120
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Table 3.8-22 Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals by Category (MGD) in the Northwest Basin
Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Public Supply GW SW 619 2520 1206 1689 1250 1281 1193 1173 1210 1001 Domestic Agriculture Industrial GW SW GW SW GW 262 24 3689 7367 61 132 6 5521 7824 99 146 7 5081 8537 257 159 28 4444 8990 124 142 7 4550 8448 206 Mining Thermoelectric Commercial GW 2 3 0 1 1 SW 67 442 228 296 446 GW N/A N/A 25 22 30 SW N/A N/A 665 535 1
SW GW SW 282 33 30 345 14 14 436 9 19 346 3 7 393 57 37
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c GW: Groundwater, SW: Surface Water
3.8.6.4 Domestic Self Supplied Water Regional drinking water withdrawals are represented by the public supply and domestic withdrawal data. Domestic withdrawals represent estimates of self supplied private withdrawals for residential use. According to 2005 USGS data as presented in Table 3.8-22 above, 74% of total drinking water withdrawals are from surface water sources. 80% of public water supply withdrawals are from surface water. Additionally, since 1985, domestic water withdrawals have increased 92%, and public water supply withdrawals have increased 42%, indicating that regional drinking water demand is increasing. A review of USGS water use data for the years 1985 – 2000 indicate that the total proportion of the population supplied by a public water supplier is increasing while the total proportion of the population that is self-supplied is decreasing, as summarized in Table 3.8-23. However, in 2005, the most recent data available, there was an estimated regional domestic self supply population of nearly 1.6 million, 10% of the total regional population. This self supply population, as demonstrated in Table 3.8-3, relies primarily on private wells for their water supply. Because these wells are not routinely monitored or treated, this population is particularly susceptible to changes in groundwater quality and supply. Table 3.8-23 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Self Supply Population 1610 (10%) 1844 (13%) 1856 (14%) 2123 (17%) 1749 (16%) Public Supply Population 14332 (90%) 12890 (87%) 11755 (86%) 10206 (83%) 9175 (84%)
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c
3.8.6.5 Baseline Water Quality Conditions A review of the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) for Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations for the region for the years 1994 – 2009 indicate that the number of total annual violations has been generally increasing since 2000, as summarized by Table 3.8For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-121
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
2. These violations represent exceedances of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of regulated constituents, as well as insufficient monitoring procedures and treatment techniques. Using SDWA violations as a surrogate for regional drinking water quality, this data would indicate that drinking water quality in the region has been declining since 2001. Additionally, the data indicate that the number of annual violations at groundwater (GW) systems in the region have increased by 134% from 2001 to 2009; whereas, violations at surface water (SW) dependent systems have increased by 140% from 2001 to 2009. This may indicate that water quality in both GW and SW systems have declined. The increase in violations could reflect the significant increase in use of both GW and SW for drinking water from 1985 to 2009. However, it must be considered that the number of SDWA violations for the region may not necessarily accurately represent regional drinking water quality, since the number of violations may be impacted by various factors, including variability in enforcement efforts. It also must be noted that, for the most part, the bulk of the violations are associated with MCL exceedances of coliform (TCR) and disinfection by-products (DBPs), which are largely unrelated to coal and other industrial discharges. Table 3.8-24 Regional Health-based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations Year 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 GW Systems 400 296 337 219 204 333 278 329 298 266 213 245 210 297 242 268 Number of Violations SW Systems 212 165 199 81 132 106 106 148 151 227 261 218 294 288 322 366 Total 612 461 536 300 336 439 384 477 449 493 474 463 504 585 564 634
Source: EPA August 18, 2010 GW: Groundwater, SW: Surface Water
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-122
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3.8.7
Other Western Interior
3.8.7.1 Past and Current Water Supply Resources and Demand
The combined population of this region is approximately 5,668,000. The region is served by approximately 8% groundwater sources, and 92% surface water sources. Water resources in this region are used for public supply, domestic usage, agriculture, commercial, industry, mining, and power (thermoelectric). Table 3.8-25 lists the total water supply withdrawals from surface and groundwater sources in five year increments from 1985 to 2005 in millions of gallons per day (MGD). The total water usage for the year 2005 was 5,265 MGD. Table 3.8-25 Summary of Total Freshwater Withdrawals (MGD) in the Other Western Interior Basin Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Groundwater 426 (8%) 451 (7%) 367 (6%) 403 (8%) 463 (10%) Surface Water 4838 (92%) 6396 (93%) 5364 (94%) 4880 (92%) 4352 (90%) Total 5264 6847 5731 5283 4815
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c
Based on 2005 USGS data, water resources in this region are used primarily for thermoelectric (72%), with 18% for public supply, 7% agriculture, 2% industrial, and less than 1% mining, domestic, and commercial. Figure 3.8-7 shows the breakdown of percentage of water used by category for the year 2005.
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-123
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Figure 3.8-7 Water Usage by Category, Other Western Interior, 2005
3.8.7.2 Groundwater Groundwater sources currently account for approximately 8% of the total water usage of this region. Equal portions (42% each) of groundwater withdrawals are for both agriculture and public supply. Approximately 5% of groundwater withdrawn is utilized for domestic purposes throughout the region. Table 3.8-26 shows a breakdown of groundwater usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005. There is no principal subsurface aquifer system in this region. However a series of surficial stream valley aquifers provides the primary source of fresh groundwater. Precipitation is the primary source of recharge to the stream valley aquifers (Miller and Appel 1997, Ryder 1996). Within the Other Western Interior Basin, a widespread water table decline has not been identified, but isolated areas of 40 foot water table declines have been identified (Reilly et al July 2008). This would indicate that, for the most part, stress on the aquifer is confined to isolated areas and is not widespread. 3.8.7.3 Surface Water Surface water sources currently account for approximately 92% of the total water usage of this region. About 78% of surface water withdrawn is utilized by thermoelectric. Approximately 16% of surface water withdrawn is utilized by public supply. No surface water withdrawn
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-124
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
throughout the region is utilized for domestic purposes. Table 3.8-26 shows a breakdown of surface water usage by type in five year increments from 1985 to 2005. Table 3.8-26 Summary of Freshwater Withdrawals by Category (MGD) in the Other Western Interior Basin
Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Public Supply Domestic Agriculture Industrial Mining Thermoelectric Commercial GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW GW SW 178 787 22 0 180 210 25 54 10 9 11 3778 N/A N/A 193 855 24 0 197 182 23 50 5 19 9 5290 N/A N/A 158 664 22 0 150 220 20 32 6 7 8 4434 3 7 128 589 34 0 150 253 36 17 10 1 31 4016 14 4 144 550 30 0 196 180 52 79 2 7 38 3532 1 4
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c
3.8.7.4 Domestic Self Supplied Water Regional drinking water withdrawals are represented by the public supply and domestic withdrawal data. Domestic withdrawals represent estimates of self supplied private withdrawals for residential use. According to 2005 USGS data as presented in Table 3.8-26 above, 80% of total drinking water withdrawals are from surface water sources. 82% of public water supply withdrawals are from surface water. Additionally, since 1985, domestic water withdrawals have decreased 27%, and public water supply withdrawals have increased 39%, indicating that regional drinking water demand is increasing. A review of USGS water use data for the years 1985 – 2000 indicate that the total proportion of the population supplied by a public water supplier is increasing while the total population and proportion of the population that is self-supplied is decreasing, as summarized in Table 3.8-27. However, in 2005, the most recent data available, there was an estimated regional domestic self supply population of nearly 0.3 million, 5% of the total regional population. This self supply population, as demonstrated in Table 3.8-3, relies primarily on private wells for their water supply. Because these wells are not routinely monitored or treated, this population is particularly susceptible to changes in groundwater quality and supply. Table 3.8-27 Summary of Domestic Water Supply Population (thousands/% of total) Year 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 Self Supply Population 291 (5%) 322 (6%) 527 (10%) 676 (14%) 731 (15%) Public Supply Population 5377 (95%) 5160 (94%) 4653 (90%) 4294 (87%) 4221 (85%)
Source: USGS 2010, USGS n.d.[1], USGS n.d.[2], USGS 2010a, USGS 2010b, USGS 2010c
3.8.7.5 Baseline Water Quality Conditions A review of the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) for Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations for the region for the years 1994 – 2009 indicate that the number
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-125
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
of total annual violations has been generally increasing since 2000, as summarized by Table 3.828. These violations represent exceedances of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of regulated constituents, as well as insufficient monitoring procedures and treatment techniques. Using SDWA violations as a surrogate for regional drinking water quality, this data would indicate that drinking water quality in the region has been declining since 2001. Additionally, the data indicate that the number of annual violations at groundwater (GW) systems in the region increased by 112% from 2001 to 2009; whereas, violations at surface water (SW) dependent systems have increased by 349% from 2001 to 2009. This may indicate that water quality in both GW and SW systems have declined. The increase in violations could reflect the significant increase in use of both SW and GW for drinking water from 1985 to 2009. However, it must be considered that the number of SDWA violations for the region may not necessarily accurately represent regional drinking water quality, since the number of violations may be impacted by various factors, including variability in enforcement efforts. It also must be noted that, for the most part, the bulk of the violations are associated with MCL exceedances of coliform (TCR) and disinfection by-products (DBPs), which are largely unrelated to coal and other industrial discharges. Table 3.8-28 Regional Health-based Safe Drinking Water Act Violations Year 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 GW Systems 133 144 122 121 107 88 86 100 85 95 96 124 104 122 157 167 Number of Violations SW Systems 791 926 913 1056 1333 336 146 107 95 98 65 195 170 176 284 462 Total 924 1070 1035 1177 1440 424 232 207 180 193 161 319 274 298 441 629
Source: EPA August 18, 2010 GW: Groundwater, SW: Surface Water
For Official Use Only – Deliberative Process Materials
FIRST WORKING DRAFT – 10/22/10 DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE DOI ANDCOOPERATING/COORDINATING AGENCIES/ENTITIES
3-126