My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP51481
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP51481
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:56:12 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 1:05:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981033
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
7/3/1995
Doc Name
BEAR COAL CO 1992 1993 AND 1994 AHR REVIEWS PERMIT C-81-033
From
J E STOVER & ASSOCIATES
To
DMG
Annual Report Year
1992
Permit Index Doc Type
HYDROLOGY REPORT
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.
/
10
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
A. J. Waldron -3- June 29, 1995 <br />hydrologic impacts of mining during the year, why did the <br />quality of the alluvial wells improve for the 1993 sample? <br />The 1993 AHR indicates that AA1 and AA3 both saw a reduction <br />in most of the pertinent water quality except AA3 in which <br />conductivity showed an increase. The water quality did not <br />really improve. The reduction in most of the pertinent water <br />quality parameter was generally within expected ranges. <br />2. The 1993 AHR would assess the hydrologic impacts of mining <br />during the next year which would be 1994. Mining in 1994 was <br />restricted to the western portion of the reserve. Retreat <br />mining was performed in the First North Mains. The Third West <br />Mains were advanced. The Second North Mains were mined along <br />with panels 14, 15, 16 & 17 (see Map 9A). Since the springs <br />in Lone Pine Gulch (G-26A, G-26B and CR-12) are protected from <br />the impacts of subsidence, no hydrologic impacts were <br />anticipated or noted for the mining performed in 1994. <br />3. There is a table in the 1993 AHR which presents that amount of <br />water imported to the mine. <br />1994 Annual Hydrologic Report <br />1. The Division asks as part of the required assessment of <br />hydrologic impacts of mining during the year, why does there <br />continue to be no flow in the lower french drain and why is <br />there no flow at spring CR-12? The lower french drain was <br />installed to dewater the toe of the area that slid in 1993. <br />It was installed to drain the toe of the slide if any free <br />water was present. Evidently no free water is available at <br />the toe of the slide since the lower french drain has been dry <br />since it was installed. The limited data available on spring <br />CR-12 indicates it is usually dry. The baseline data in the <br />permit is restricted to two monitoring events 9/93 and 11/93 <br />and both are recorded as dry. <br />The 1994 AHR would assess the hydrologic impacts of mining <br />during the next year which would be 1995. Mining in 1995 is <br />projected to occur with the retreat of the Third West Mains <br />and the development of panels to the south in Section 20. <br />Since there are no water resources in the area to be mined in <br />1995, there are no projected hydrologic impacts. <br />3. There is a table in the 1994 AHR which presents the amount of <br />water imported to the mine. <br />General Recommendations and Questions <br />Enclosed is the requested monitoring location map. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.