My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2004-12-07_PERMIT FILE - C1984063
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1984063
>
2004-12-07_PERMIT FILE - C1984063
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:16:10 PM
Creation date
2/19/2008 1:35:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984063
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/7/2004
Section_Exhibit Name
Rule 2.04 Environmental Resources
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.
/
70
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
until a maximum of 233 ft3 per day (1.24 gpmi near the end of <br />the five year period when the maximum cross sectional area is <br />available for flow. The total amount o4 inflow is small due <br />to the minimal transmissivity of the coal seam and the small <br />size of the operation. <br />The flow into the line sink with recharge was taken as the <br />total inflow from the Harvey Gap subcrop. This flaw also <br />increased throughout the five year mine life to a maximum of <br />91 ft3 (0.47 gpm or 0.063 cfs?. This depletion is 0.2% of the <br />maximum flow of ~ 40 cfs released from the dam. The depletion <br />is 3.2% of the minimum flow of ~ 2 cfs released from the dam. <br />The depletion is negligible. <br />The radius of influence is bounded on the west at 400 feet by <br />the subcrop. The eastern line sink reches a maximum distance <br />of 237 feet. The line dip sink distance becomes negative <br />since the radius of influence is calculated from the original <br />position of the sink and the mine progression in the down dip <br />direction is faster than the expanding distance of influence. <br />The small transmissivity and size of the oeration result in a <br />small area close to the mine being influenced. No ground <br />water uses are affected within this distance of influence. <br />Hydrology - Water Quality Impacts. No impacts to ground water <br />• qualit>• are anticipated since flow is into the mine area and <br />then is used in the mining operation or pumped to the <br />sedimentation pond. <br />The impact of the mine on Harvey Gap was evaluated for three <br />possible impacts: <br />1. Flow depletion through ground water interception by <br />the mine <br />2. Discharge of the sediment pond to Harvey Gap <br />3. Runoff from the coal refuse pile <br />As discussed in the Modeling section, the depletion of flow <br />due to the mine is 0.2% of the maximum flow and 3.2 % of the <br />minimum flow in Harvey Gap. Since no quantity of water or <br />dissolved solids is being added to Harvey Gap, no water <br />quality impact is predicted. <br />The inflow to the mine is small so the quantity will be used <br />in the mining operation or pumped to the sedimentation pond. <br />Runoff from the site will be flowing to the pond. The ponds <br />are designed for the 24 hour containment of the 10 year-24 <br /> <br />63 Revised 5/87 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.