My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL31417
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL31417
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:54:34 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 7:00:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
6/23/1989
Doc Name
TECHNICAL REVISION 4 RESPONSE TO STIPULATION 6
From
PEABODY COAL CO
To
MLRD
Permit Index Doc Type
BLASTING
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.
/
4
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
<br />Carl Mount <br />June 22, 1989 <br />Page 3 <br />was drilled to a depth of 970 feet and then plugged with <br />cement to 650 feet (approximately eleven feet above the <br />Lennox coal seam). The principal water yielding sands in <br />the upper 650 feet of the well are from 335 feet to 430 <br />feet. That places the producing zone about 220 feet above <br />the Lennox seam. The average overburden aquifer saturated <br />thickness in the area to be disturbed by mining that could <br />feasibly be considered hydraulically upgradient from Olson's <br />Well ranges from 5.6 to 46 feet. The average separation <br />between the Wadge coal and the Lennox coal in this same area <br />i s 40 to 50 feet. Thi s i ndi Cates that the O1 son Wel l i s <br />plugged to a height in the stratigraphic sequence that is <br />above that which is saturated and will be disturbed by <br />mining at Seneca II-W. The particular sandstone portion of <br />the overburden that the Olson Well derives its yield from is <br />not even present (stratigraphically higher) in the <br />upgradient areas 'to be disturbed by mining. <br />There is no potential for mining to impact the quantity or <br />quality of the Olson Well, and therefore, r~o mitigation plan <br />• is required or warranted. <br />With regard to the provision in Stipulation No. 6 pertaining <br />to sending copies of the Augmentation Plan to water rights <br />holders of record for comment, this notification is provided <br />under several venues in the permitting process. First, the <br />technical revision process provides public notice of both <br />the application and the proposed decision by the Division. <br />Second, with the filing of the Augmentation Plan with the <br />water court, the court then prepares a resume' of the <br />application which is mailed to all those who have ever <br />expressed an interest in the vicinity or who appear on a <br />general mailing list. The resume' is also published in the <br />local newspaper. Finally, a water court referee is charged <br />with providing a copy of the augmentation directly to all <br />persons he believes may be impacted by the plan. At a <br />minimum, this includes any entity mentioned in the plan, all <br />property or water right holders of record in the vicinity of <br />the plan, and any individuals who may have expressed an <br />interest at some time in the past. These processes <br />sufficiently satisfy the notification requirements of <br />Stipulation No. 6. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.