Laserfiche WebLink
129 <br /> i rock volurmes, the hydraulic permeability, the mineral 1 order to I, which is the Division's closing. <br /> 2 content of the pathways which result in the electrical 2 CLOSING STATEMENT <br /> 3 resistivity measurements that were obtained. 3 MR. STARK: Okay. Again, I'm Jim Stark, <br /> 4 My contention is that even had the water 4 senior environmental protection specialist with the <br /> 5 has been -- 5 Division. <br /> 6 MR. STUTZ: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, 6 So, again, the reason we're here, <br /> 7 it seems to me that this is testimony that a 7 surface owners -- property owners Mr. Fontanari and <br /> 8 hydrologist is carpetent to give but not this 8 Mr. Carey have objected to the Division's proposed <br /> 9 witness. 9 decision to approve Snowcap Coal Cargany's application <br /> 10 MR. SINGLETARY: Overruled. 10 for TR-69 and requested this fom al hearing. <br /> 11 Go ahead. 11 And the background. Again, on our DRMS <br /> 12 A. All right. The point is that after you 12 inspection of 6/11 of 2014 water was seen flowing into <br /> 13 turn off the water or stop feeding water there, there 13 a new ditch dug by Mr. Fontanari and into a subsurface <br /> 14 should ruin within the pathway sore residual water. 14 hole. This water was later suspected of entering the <br /> 15 Like I said, the length of it -- I will admit, it is 15 Roadside Portal -- south portal area through same <br /> 16 beyond my scope to say haw long it remains there, but 16 subsurface hole. Again, the Division estimated up to <br /> 17 it should be sane finite time afterwards. 17 54 million gallons entered the mine at that point. <br /> 18 So we would still see this interaction 18 So Snowcap's TR-69, it's not about <br /> 19 going on. It would — over time it would likely lessen I19 possible subsidence damage or irrigation of nonarable <br /> 20 in the amount of resistivity -- excuse me — the i20 lands. It's not about any alternative plans. It's not <br /> 21 resistivity would increase; the amount of electrical 21 about trust funds. What it — and it doesn't <br /> 22 conductivity would lessen over time in all 22 seek to -- he didn't talk about any of this stuff. I'm <br /> 23 likelihood. 23 sorry. Sorry. He didn't talk about that. I'm going <br /> 24 And because the way this water is 24 to go right over that. <br /> 25 removed is through gravity is that the upper portions 25 Snowcap's application for TR-69 is very <br /> 302 304 <br /> 1 of the area would became less -- have less and less 1 narrow in scope. It's basically about fixing the <br /> 2 water over time and then would migrate down. 2 hydrologic caamanication that was noted on June 11, <br /> 3 One of our -- you know, we couldn't 3 2014. That hydrologic catmu nication was verified by <br /> 4 perfectly re-energize these systems with water in the 4 Fugro's investigations, and it's also verified by HBET. <br /> 5 time period we had and the amounts but enough to put it 5 The application for TR-69 has a minimal <br /> 6 in there and try to start to recharge the upper 6 0.4-acre surface disturbance. Snowcap will post the <br /> 7 portions of these systems, which would be the ones 7 necessary bond for reclamation for this surface <br /> 8 expected for most of the drainage out. 8 disturbance. <br /> 9 Q. (BY MR. JUSTUS) So in conclusion, 9 So water was seen flowing in this <br /> 10 notwithstanding the criticisms of Mr. Carey, do you 10 east/west ditch (indicated). Sane of that water was <br /> 11 feel like the ERT surrey conducted by Fugro was still a 11 flowing into the Carey Pond. Sane of that water was <br /> 12 valid analysis and would have effectively identified 12 flowing in this north/south ditch (indicated) that was <br /> 13 any subsurface ananalies? 13 dug by Mr. Fontanari. <br /> 14 A. Yes, it would have -- would have 14 Water was going into this subsurface <br /> 15 identified anomalies if they existed. 15 hole (indicated). And there we go — and water was <br /> 16 MR. JUSTUS: Okay. Thank you. 16 then later determined-- not in that inspection, but at <br /> 17 MR. HILD: Yes. 17 a later date after studies -- found to be going into <br /> 18 MR. BECKWITH: No questions. 18 this historic vent shaft (indicated). <br /> 19 MR. STUTZ: No questions. 19 So Snowcap's plan as proposed used <br /> 20 MR. SINGLETARY: Any questions from the 20 adequate testing procedures to determine the hydrologic <br /> 21 Board? 21 carom nication or connection between the surface water <br /> 22 MR. JUSTUS: You're excused. 22 and the mine workings. The plan also as proposed will <br /> 23 No more rebuttal witnesses. 23 adequately repair the hydrologic communication or <br /> 24 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. That takes us 24 connection between the surface water and the mine <br /> 25 through H on the prehearing statenent -- prehearing 25 workings. <br /> 303 305 <br />