Laserfiche WebLink
Carol Pahlke <br />December 23, 1980 <br />Page 19 <br />Please have these statements clarified. <br />Response: The quoted statements do not conflict <br />individually or in context. The first statement <br />concerns infiltration rates on a given area of <br />reclaimed land. The second statement concerns the <br />horizontal extent of the groundwater recharge area. <br />As stated on pages 780-115 and 780-116 of the Permit <br />Application, these two factors will balance against <br />each other in restoring the groundwater recharge <br />capacity of the coal aquifer after mining. <br />4. The installation of three monitoring wells are proposed <br />for the reclaimed pit after mining in the new lease area. <br />These wells will be used for ground water quality and quantity <br />measurements. An additional monitoring hole, in the soon to <br />be completed Marr Pit, would provide the same information <br />sooner. This information could be used in planning the <br />reclamation of the new pits. <br />Response: Under normal circumstances, Kerr Coal <br />would have no objection to this request. However, <br />as stated on page 780-112aa, the existing Marr Pit <br />has barely intercepted the saturated zone of the <br />coal aquifer. On the other hand, the proposed <br />mining will expose the coal aquifer where it is <br />saturated under a piezometric head of as much as 250 <br />feet. The hydrologic conditions in proposed Pit #1, <br />Pit #2 and Pit #3 will be much different from that <br />experienced in the existing Marr Pit. Therefore, <br />,information which could be provided by a monitoring <br />hole in the existing Marr Pit could not be used in <br />planning the reclamation of the new pits. Kerr Coal <br />does not agree that an additional monitoring hole in <br />the existing pit would have any utility. <br />5. The pumping tests run on the Sudduth Coal at well number <br />028-79-36, the core of depression intercepted on impermeable <br />boundary, and the well on the other side of the fault in Bush <br />Draw, DH-4 did not react to the test. These results suggest <br />that the fault in Bush Draw is an impermeable barrier to flow <br />of water in the Sudduth coal seam. However, this pumping test <br />was not run long enough to positively substantiate this as <br />fact. if the fault in Bush and Williams Draws are indeed <br />impermeable barriers, these faults would separate the Johnny <br />Moore Syncline into at least 2 isolated ground water basins by <br />restricting the region ground water flow down the syncline <br />axis. <br />