Laserfiche WebLink
=E~ac:~e: The table 's correct as. it stands. The last sentence in tie first <br />pa:ac::3ph, Page 8. :+r;.~.ndix G, C:~aptel' G should read: "The length of the area <br />t`:rou_li~:hich it would flow was calculated by adding twice the distance to the <br />hydrologic divide [o the length of the mine face at the greatest depth of <br />penetra[i~n, as indicated in footnote (c) of table D and in table E ". The <br />chinking behind calculating the zone of influence in this manner is found on <br />Page G-81, second paragraph of the application as cited in footone (v) of <br />table D. <br />3. In Appendix A, V-11, tables, H, I, and J, the applicant presents <br />calculations to esti,-ate interrupted ground water outflow. The applicant <br />assumes alluvial widths of Curtis Creek ac the G, P, J, and Ff' subcrops <br />to be 200 feet. As shown on Exhibit 9-21, alluvial widths are considerably <br />greater than this assL~ption, thus outflow estimates may be too low. The <br />applicant should correct this apparent error or provide rationale for <br />assumed alluvial widths. _ ._ <br />Response: Revised tables H, I, and J are inserted in Appendix G, <br />Voltnne G. Also note that the total water depletion resulting froth <br />mining the F7:' and G seams is 21.5 affyr. <br /> <br /> <br />