My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE58063
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE58063
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:00:23 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 5:40:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980005
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
TAB 15 PERMIT RENEWAL, 1986
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
122
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2.Gu.7 r~i~irolca~ Descriotion <br />COMMENT: <br />1. Peabody has re~~ised the potentiometric surface map of the 4!adge <br />Coal and Suoils and Wolf Creek Coal and Spoils (Exhibit 7-2A., <br />Seneca II Permit Renewal) in response to Comment No. 3 of the <br />original Adequacy Revieir.~. <br />The following problems exist with the revised potentiometric <br />Surface i4ap (Exhibit 7-2A): <br />A. The equipotential lines follow the topography near 17000E, <br />23COGS and 11500E, 245005 for no apparent reason. <br />?. The peientioinetric surface is above the topographic surface <br />near 13000E, 230005 and 9750E, 2450GS. if the spoils aquifer <br />is unconfined, water should flow perennially at these <br />locations. .:o indication of perennial flow in these areas <br />e>:ists. <br />C. The potentiometric map should indicate the areas where the <br />:polls are unsaturated, or estimaied ', by cashed lines) to <br />currently be unsaturated. <br />RESPCP;SE: <br />A. u E. <br />ChiLRD's concerns stemmed from the fact that they were unclear as to the <br />extents of spoiled and undisturbed areas on Exhibit 7-2A. Peabody's <br />assumptions concerning topographic control of the equipotential lines <br />was clarified ai the September 30th meeting in Denver. It was agreed <br />that no revisions to Exhibit 7-2A would be necessary. This has been <br />expanded upon in the discussion in Tab 7, Section VII 8.2.a. <br />C. <br />This ccmment has been addressed ir. Paragraphs ~ and 3 of Tab 7, Section <br />VII 3.2.a. <br />COMMENT: <br />• 2. The interaction betv:een the !golf Creek aquifer and the lJadge <br />aquifer, as indicated by the potentiometric surfaces, should <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.