APPENDIX G SIMULATION RESULTS FOR MITIGATION … · the averages of the 2006 and 2007 rates until...

APPENDIX G

SIMULATION RESULTS FOR MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES

APPENDIX G

SIMULATION RESULTS FOR MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES

Prepared for:

FREEPORT-MCMORAN SIERRITA INC.

6200 West Duval Mine Road Green Valley, Arizona 85614

Prepared by:

HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC. 51 West Wetmore Road, Suite 101

Tucson, Arizona 85705-1678 (520) 293-1500

October 22, 2008

Appendix G to FS H:\78300\78310\Report\FS Appendix G.doc October 22, 2008

G-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 2. EXPLANATION OF SIMULATION RESULTS .............................................................. 3

2.1 Sulfate Plume Extents Maps ................................................................................... 3 2.2 Water Level Change Maps...................................................................................... 3 2.3 Mitigation Pumping ................................................................................................ 4 2.4 Pumped Sulfate Concentrations.............................................................................. 5 2.5 Cumulative Sulfate Mass ........................................................................................ 5 2.6 Capture Zones ......................................................................................................... 6

3. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 9 4. USES AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................ 11

FIGURES

G.1 Alternative 1 Mitigation Pumping G.2 Alternative 2 Mitigation Pumping G.3 Alternative 3 Mitigation Pumping G.4 Alternative 4 Mitigation Pumping G.5 Alternative 5 Mitigation Pumping G.6 Comparison of Mitigation Pumping G.7 Comparison of Cumulative Mitigation Pumping G.8 Alternative 1 Pumped Sulfate Concentrations G.9 Alternative 2 Pumped Sulfate Concentrations G.10 Alternative 3 Pumped Sulfate Concentrations G.11 Alternative 4 Pumped Sulfate Concentrations G.12 Alternative 5 Pumped Sulfate Concentrations G.13 Alternative 1 Cumulative Sulfate Mass G.14 Alternative 2 Cumulative Sulfate Mass G.15 Alternative 3 Cumulative Sulfate Mass G.16 Alternative 4 Cumulative Sulfate Mass G.17 Alternative 5 Cumulative Sulfate Mass G.18 Comparison of Net Sulfate Mass Removal G.19 Alternative 1 Capture Zone, Starting in Year 2010 G.20 Alternative 1 Capture Zone, Starting in Year 2043 G.21 Alternative 2 Capture Zone, Starting in Year 2010 G.22 Alternative 2 Capture Zone, Starting in Year 2043 G.23 Alternative 3 Capture Zone, Starting in Year 2010 G.24 Alternative 3 Capture Zone, Starting in Year 2043 G.25 Alternative 4 Capture Zone, Starting in Year 2010 G.26 Alternative 4 Capture Zone, Starting in Year 2043 G.27 Alternative 5 Capture Zone, Starting in Year 2010 G.28 Alternative 5 Capture Zone, Starting in Year 2043


G-ii


G-1

1. INTRODUCTION

The response of the sulfate plume to the five mitigation alternatives was simulated using

the numerical model created for the Feasibility Study (FS). Details of model construction and

calibration are discussed in Appendix I of HGC (2007), and preparation of the model for

predictive simulations of the mitigation alternatives is discussed in Appendix E of this FS. This

appendix provides illustrations supplemental to the tables and figures of simulation results

presented in the main body of the FS that are useful in evaluating and comparing the mitigation

alternatives. These supplemental figures include the following:

• Mitigation pumping schedules for the five alternatives (Figures G.1 to G.5), and a comparison of total pumping rates and cumulative pumping volumes of the five alternatives (Figure G.6 and G.7)

• Sulfate concentrations (flow-weighted) in the water pumped by the mitigation wells for the five alternatives (Figures G.8 to G.12)

• Cumulative sulfate mass removed by mitigation pumping and added via the Sierrita Tailing Impoundment (Figures G.13 to G.17), and a comparison of net sulfate mass removal for the mitigation alternatives (Figure G.18)

• Hydraulic capture zones for the mitigation alternatives for simulations starting in the year 2010 and the year 2043 (Figures G.19 to G.28)

Explanations on the creation of these figures and the figures of the numerical model simulation

results contained in the main body of the FS are provided in the following section.


G-2


G-3

2. EXPLANATION OF SIMULATION RESULTS

This section discusses the methods used to create the figures contained in the main text of

the FS and in this appendix.

2.1 Sulfate Plume Extents Maps

The maps showing the sulfate plume extents (Figures 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 19 of the FS)

were created by comparing, cell by cell, the model output of the sulfate concentrations in each of

the three model layers and displaying the maximum sulfate concentration. Model cells with a

saturated thickness less than 25 feet (7.5 meters) were not included in the model comparison.

The saturated thickness was computed as the difference between the groundwater elevation in a

model cell and the layer bottom elevation for that grid cell for cells where the groundwater level

was below the layer top elevation. For cells where the groundwater level was above the top

elevation, the saturated thickness was equal to the layer thickness. Displaying the sulfate plume

extents using the maximum concentrations in each of the three layers is expected to give a

conservative (i.e. maximum) estimate of the sulfate plume extents in relation to plume extents

estimated from water quality sampling of regional wells.

2.2 Water Level Change Maps

The water level change maps (Figures 20 through 24 of the FS) show the net affect of

mitigation pumping on groundwater levels. The net affect in this context refers to the difference


G-4

between regional groundwater levels under mitigation pumping and regional groundwater levels

assuming no mitigation pumping, except for a continuation of the current pumping at the

Interceptor Well (IW) wellfield until the end of mine life assumed for the FFS. The water level

change maps were created by computing, cell by cell, the difference between the groundwater

elevations of a “reference case” simulation and the groundwater elevations of the simulation of

the mitigation alternative (i.e. negative water level changes indicate water level declines resulting

from mitigation activities relative to the reference case). The reference case simulation assumes

the same pumping, recharge, and boundary conditions as the mitigation alternative simulations

with the exceptions that the IW wellfield wells and the Canoa Ranch wells continue to pump at

the averages of the 2006 and 2007 rates until the assumed end of mine life in 2043, at which time

pumping in these wells ceases. The reference case simulations for Alternative 1, 2, and 3 assume

that drain down of the STI begins in the year 2043, and the reference case simulation for

Alternatives 4 and 5 assumes the start of drain down in the year 2016.

2.3 Mitigation Pumping

The figures showing the mitigation pumping rates for the five alternatives (Figure G.1 to

G.6) were created from the tables of pumping rate schedules included in the FS (Tables 3, 5, 7, 9,

and 11) and are reflective of the pumping rates used in the numerical model. Figure G.7 shows

the running total of groundwater volume pumped in the five alternatives.


G-5

2.4 Pumped Sulfate Concentrations

The figures of pumped sulfate concentrations for the five alternatives (Figures G.8 to

G.12) show the flow-weighted average sulfate concentration being pumped in each series of

mitigation wells (e.g., Focused Feasibility Study [FFS] wells, Source Control [SC] wells, Plume

Stabilization [PS] wells, etc.). The flow-weighted average concentration means that the sulfate

contribution from each individual well is weighted by the pumping rate of that well. The

flow-weighted concentration represents the sulfate concentration that would result if effluent

from individual wells in each well series (FFS, SC, PS, etc.) were combined with effluent from

other wells in the same series. The sulfate concentrations in individual wells are also

flow-weighted according to the contribution of water from each model layer to the total pumping

rate in that well. Flow-weighted concentrations in individual wells were computed internally by

the modeling software; and flow-weighting the concentrations of well groups were computed

externally during post-processing of the simulation results.

2.5 Cumulative Sulfate Mass

The figures showing cumulative sulfate mass removed and added (Figures G.13 to G.18)

illustrate the running total of sulfate mass removed by the mitigation wells, the total sulfate mass

entering the model domain via the STI, and net sulfate mass removed by mitigation wells. The

sulfate mass removal rate in an individual well is the product of the well’s volumetric pumping

rate and the sulfate concentration in the pump effluent. The total sulfate mass removal rate is the

sum of the removal rate in all the individual mitigation pumping wells. Any incidental removal

of sulfate mass in wells other than mitigation wells was not considered in computing sulfate


G-6

mass removal. Similarly, the sulfate mass addition rate is the product of the volumetric water

seepage rate in the STI and the sulfate concentration in the seepage water. The net sulfate mass

removal rate is the difference between the removal and addition rates. The removal, addition,

and net removal rates were converted to masses by multiplying the computed rate by the model

time step over which the rate was operative. The cumulative masses are the running totals of the

masses computed for each time step.

2.6 Capture Zones

The capture zone maps (Figures G.19 to G.28) outline the zone of hydraulic capture

induced by mitigation pumping. Groundwater within the zone of hydraulic capture will either be

removed or hydraulically isolated from the down gradient aquifer by pumping at the mitigation

wells. The hydraulic capture zones were determined by numerical model simulations that

tracked the flow paths of virtual water particles released at selected locations. The selected

release locations included a line (i.e., linear array) of particles at the outer edges of the STI, two

lines of particles at progressive down-gradient locations between the IW wellfield and the FFS

wells, a line of particles between FFS-1 and PS-4, and a line of particles between PS-4 and PS-2.

Two hydraulic capture zones are illustrated for each of the five alternatives. One shows the

results of simulations beginning in the year 2010, and one shows the results of simulations

beginning in the year 2043. These two years were chosen to begin the particle tracking

simulations because they begin the two critical periods for maintaining hydraulic capture. The

year 2010 is the assumed beginning of mitigation pumping and starts the period of the greatest

seepage from the STI. The year 2043 begins the assumed post-mine life period when mitigation


G-7

pumping is reducing to the minimum needed to meet the mitigation objective. The ability of an

alternative to meet its mitigation objective was evaluated by the results of the particle tracking

simulations and also by long-term transport simulations that estimated the sulfate plume

migration under mitigation alternatives through the year 2110.


G-8


G-9

3. REFERENCES

Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 2007. Aquifer Characterization Report: Task 5 of Aquifer

Characterization Plan, Mitigation Order on Consent Docket No. P-50-06; Pima Country, Arizona. Prepared for Phelps Dodge Sierrita, Inc. December 28, 2007.


G-10


G-11

4. USES AND LIMITATIONS

The opinions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the scope of

services and information obtained through the performance of the services, as agreed upon by

HGC and the party for whom this report was originally prepared. Results of any investigations,

tests, or findings presented in this report apply solely to conditions existing at the time HGC’s

investigative work was performed and are inherently based on and limited to the available data

and the extent of the investigation activities. No representation, warranty, or guarantee, express

or implied, is intended or given. HGC makes no representation as to the accuracy or

completeness of any information provided by other parties not under contract to HGC to the

extent that HGC relied upon that information. This report is expressly for the sole and exclusive

use of the party for whom this report was originally prepared and for the particular purpose that

it was intended. Reuse of this report, or any portion thereof, for other than its intended purpose,

or if modified, or if used by third parties, shall be at the sole risk of the user.


G-12

FIGURES

H:\78300\78314 Numerical Model\HGC Model\prediction072008\results\NSL FFS Results.xls

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Pu

mp

ing

Rat

e (g

pm

)

FFS Wells SC Wells IW Wells ALTERNATIVE 1MITIGATION PUMPING

HYDROGEOCHEM, INC. Approved FigureDateAuthorDate File Name

NWH 9/18/08 G.1G.1 PumpRate19/18/08NWH


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Pu

mp

ing

Rat

e (g

pm

)

FFS Wells SC Wells

PS Wells IW Wells

ALTERNATIVE 2MITIGATION PUMPING


NWH 9/18/08 G.2G2 PumpRate29/18/08NWH


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Pu

mp

ing

Rat

e (g

pm

)

FFS Wells SC Wells PS Wells

MC Wells IW WellsALTERNATIVE 3

MITIGATION PUMPINGHYDROGEOCHEM, INC. Approved FigureDateAuthorDate File Name



0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Pu

mp

ing

Rat

e (g

pm

)

FFS Wells SC Wells

PS Wells IW WellsALTERNATIVE 4




0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Pu

mp

ing

Rat

e (g

pm

)


MC Wells IW WellsALTERNATIVE 5




0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Pu

mp

ing

Rat

e (g

pm

)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2


Alternative 5

COMPARISON OF MITIGATION PUMPINGHYDROGEOCHEM, INC. Approved FigureDateAuthorDate File Name

NWH 10/7/08 G.6G6 PumpCompage10/7/08NWH


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Cu

mu

lati

ve V

olu

me

Pu

mp

ed (M

gal

)



Alternative 5

COMPARISON OF CUMULATIVEMITIGATION PUMPING


NWH 10/7/08 G.7G7 CumPumpComp10/7/08NWH


0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Pu

mp

ed C

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/L

)

FFS Wells SC Wells IW WellsALTERNATIVE 1

PUMPED SULFATE CONCENTRATIONSHYDROGEOCHEM, INC. Approved FigureDateAuthorDate File Name

NWH 9/18/08 G.8G8 PumpConc19/18/08NWH


0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Pu

mp

ed C

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/L

)

FFS Wells SC Wells

PS Wells IW WellsALTERNATIVE 2

PUMPED SULFATE CONCENTRATIONSHYDROGEOCHEM, INC. Approved FigureDateAuthorDate File Name



0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Pu

mp

ed C

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/L

)


MC Wells IW Wells

ALTERNATIVE 3PUMPED SULFATE CONCENTRATIONS




0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Pu

mp

ed C

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/L

)

FFS Wells SC Wells

PS Wells IW Wells





0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Pu

mp

ed C

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/L

)


MC Wells IW Wells





0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Cu

mu

lati

ve S

ulf

ate

Mas

s (t

on

s)

Mass Removed via Pumping

Mass Added via STI

Net Mass Removed

ALTERNATIVE 1CUMULATIVE SULFATE MASS


NWH 9/18/08 G.13G13 Removal19/18/08NWH


0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Cu

mu

lati

ve S

ulf

ate

Mas

s (t

on

s)


Mass Added via STI

Net Mass Removed





0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Cu

mu

lati

ve S

ulf

ate

Mas

s (t

on

s)


Mass Added via STI

Net Mass RemovedALTERNATIVE 3

CUMULATIVE SULFATE MASSHYDROGEOCHEM, INC. Approved FigureDateAuthorDate File Name



0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Cu

mu

lati

ve S

ulf

ate

Mas

s (t

on

s)


Mass Added via STI

Net Mass Removed





0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year

Cu

mu

lati

ve S

ulf

ate

Mas

s (t

on

s)



Alternative 5

COMPARISON OF NETSULFATE MASS REMOVAL


NWH 10/1/08 G.18G18 RemovalCompare10/1/08NWH

Approved Date Author Date File Name Figure

HYDROGEOCHEM, INC.

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

IW-1

IW-10

IW-11

IW-12

IW-13

IW-14

IW-15

IW-16

IW-17IW-18IW-19

IW-2

IW-20

IW-21

IW-23

IW-24

IW-3A

IW-4

IW-6A

IW-8

IW-9

SC-4

SC-3

SC-2

SC-1

FFS-6

FFS-5

FFS-4

FFS-3

FFS-2

FFS-1

IW-22

IW-5

Legend

Proposed Focused Feasibility Study Well

Proposed Source Control Well

!( Interceptor Well

Particle Tracks

State Land Boundary

ALTERNATIVE 1 CAPTURE ZONESTARTING IN YEAR 2010

78310200G10/02/08NWH G.1910/02/08RAM

PROJECTION: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 $0 2,500 5,000 Feet


HYDROGEOCHEM, INC.

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

IW-1

IW-10

IW-11

IW-12

IW-13

IW-14

IW-15

IW-16

IW-17IW-18IW-19

IW-2

IW-20

IW-21

IW-23

IW-24

IW-3A

IW-4

IW-6A

IW-8

IW-9

SC-4

SC-3

SC-2

SC-1

FFS-6

FFS-5

FFS-4

FFS-3

FFS-2

FFS-1

IW-22

IW-5

Legend



!( Interceptor Well

Particle Tracks

State Land Boundary


78310201G10/02/08NWH G.2010/02/08RAM



HYDROGEOCHEM, INC.

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

DD D

D

IW-1

IW-10

IW-11

IW-12

IW-13

IW-14

IW-15

IW-16

IW-17IW-18IW-19

IW-2

IW-20

IW-21

IW-23

IW-24

IW-3A

IW-4

IW-6A

IW-8

IW-9

PS-4

PS-3PS-2

PS-1

SC-4

SC-3

SC-2

SC-1

FFS-6

FFS-5

FFS-4

FFS-3

FFS-2

FFS-1

IW-22

IW-5

Legend



D Proposed Plume Stabilization Well

!( Interceptor Well

Particle Tracks

State Land Boundary


78310202G10/02/08NWH G.2110/02/08RAM



HYDROGEOCHEM, INC.

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

DD D

D

IW-1

IW-10

IW-11

IW-12

IW-13

IW-14

IW-15

IW-16

IW-17IW-18IW-19

IW-2

IW-20

IW-21

IW-23

IW-24

IW-3A

IW-4

IW-6A

IW-8

IW-9

PS-4

PS-3PS-2

PS-1

SC-4

SC-3

SC-2

SC-1

FFS-6

FFS-5

FFS-4

FFS-3

FFS-2

FFS-1

IW-22

IW-5

Legend




!( Interceptor Well

Particle Tracks

State Land Boundary


78310203G10/02/08NWH G.2210/02/08RAM



HYDROGEOCHEM, INC.

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

IW-1

IW-10

IW-11

IW-12

IW-13

IW-14

IW-15

IW-16

IW-17IW-18IW-19

IW-2

IW-20

IW-21

IW-23

IW-24

IW-3A

IW-4

IW-6A

IW-8

IW-9

MC-2

MC-1

PS-4

PS-3PS-2

PS-1

SC-4

SC-3

SC-2

SC-1

FFS-6

FFS-5

FFS-4

FFS-3

FFS-2

FFS-1

IW-22

IW-5

Legend




Proposed Mass Capture Well

!( Interceptor Well

Particle Tracks

State Land Boundary


78310204G10/02/08NWH G.2310/02/08RAM



HYDROGEOCHEM, INC.

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

IW-1

IW-10

IW-11

IW-12

IW-13

IW-14

IW-15

IW-16

IW-17IW-18IW-19

IW-2

IW-20

IW-21

IW-23

IW-24

IW-3A

IW-4

IW-6A

IW-8

IW-9

MC-2

MC-1

PS-4

PS-3PS-2

PS-1

SC-4

SC-3

SC-2

SC-1

FFS-6

FFS-5

FFS-4

FFS-3

FFS-2

FFS-1

IW-22

IW-5

Legend





!( Interceptor Well

Particle Tracks

State Land Boundary


78310205G10/02/08NWH G.2410/02/08RAM



HYDROGEOCHEM, INC.

DD D

D

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

PS-4

PS-3PS-2

PS-1

SC-4

SC-3

SC-2

SC-1

FFS-6

FFS-5

FFS-4

FFS-3

FFS-2

FFS-1

IW-1

IW-10

IW-11

IW-12

IW-13

IW-14

IW-15

IW-16

IW-17IW-18IW-19

IW-2

IW-20

IW-21

IW-23

IW-24

IW-3A

IW-4

IW-6A

IW-8

IW-9

IW-22

IW-5

Legend




!( Interceptor Well

Particle Tracks

State Land Boundary


78310206G10/02/08NWH G.2510/02/08RAM



HYDROGEOCHEM, INC.

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

DD D

D

IW-1

IW-10

IW-11

IW-12

IW-13

IW-14

IW-15

IW-16

IW-17IW-18IW-19

IW-2

IW-20

IW-21

IW-23

IW-24

IW-3A

IW-4

IW-6A

IW-8

IW-9

PS-4

PS-3PS-2

PS-1

SC-4

SC-3

SC-2

SC-1

FFS-6

FFS-5

FFS-4

FFS-3

FFS-2

FFS-1

IW-22

IW-5

Legend




!( Interceptor Well

Particle Tracks

State Land Boundary


78310207G10/02/08NWH G.2610/02/08RAM



HYDROGEOCHEM, INC.

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

IW-1

IW-10

IW-11

IW-12

IW-13

IW-14

IW-15

IW-16

IW-17IW-18IW-19

IW-2

IW-20

IW-21

IW-23

IW-24

IW-3A

IW-4

IW-6A

IW-8

IW-9

MC-2

MC-1

PS-4

PS-3PS-2

PS-1

SC-4

SC-3

SC-2

SC-1

FFS-6

FFS-5

FFS-4

FFS-3

FFS-2

FFS-1

IW-22

IW-5

Legend





! Interceptor Well

Particle Tracks

State Land Boundary


78310208G10/02/08NWH G.2710/02/08RAM



HYDROGEOCHEM, INC.

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

IW-1

IW-10

IW-11

IW-12

IW-13

IW-14

IW-15

IW-16

IW-17IW-18IW-19

IW-2

IW-20

IW-21

IW-23

IW-24

IW-3A

IW-4

IW-6A

IW-8

IW-9

MC-2

MC-1

PS-4

PS-3PS-2

PS-1

SC-4

SC-3

SC-2

SC-1

FFS-6

FFS-5

FFS-4

FFS-3

FFS-2

FFS-1

IW-22

IW-5

Legend





!( Interceptor Well

Particle Tracks

State Land Boundary


78310209G10/02/08NWH G.2810/02/08RAM


APPENDIX G SIMULATION RESULTS FOR MITIGATION … · the averages of the 2006 and 2007 rates until...

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX G SIMULATION RESULTS FOR MITIGATION … · the averages of the 2006 and 2007 rates until...