My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-04-29_REPORT - C1981035 (5)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Report
>
Coal
>
C1981035
>
2009-04-29_REPORT - C1981035 (5)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:45:59 PM
Creation date
4/30/2009 1:37:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981035
IBM Index Class Name
REPORT
Doc Date
4/29/2009
Doc Name
2008 AHR Review Letter
From
DRMS
To
National King Coal, LLC
Annual Report Year
2008
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
Email Name
TAK
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.
/
8
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 /> <br />Requirement <br />Require- <br />meat <br />citation Require- <br />ment <br />complied <br />with ? <br />(yes / <br />no) <br /> <br />Comment <br /> The following two aquifers are the most likely to be affected by <br /> mining at King: the Hay Gulch alluvium and the Cliffhouse <br /> Sandstone. The Hay Gulch alluvium is monitored downgradient <br /> from the King I Mine in the Wiltze well, downstream from the west <br /> sediment pond. The Hay Gulch alluvium is monitored <br /> downgradient from the King II Mine in the mine's downgradient <br /> well. Historical data indicate compliance with the Basic Standards <br /> for ground water in this aquifer if a compliance point were <br /> established at either of the two downgradient wells. <br /> Although ground water impacts to the Cliffhouse Sandstone are <br /> not expected, compliance with the basic ground water standards in <br /> this aquifer is not known because the Cliffhouse is not monitored. <br /> Impacts to the Cliffhouse are not expected, however, due to the dry <br /> conditions of the King I Mine and expected dry conditions of the <br /> King H Mine. It seems unlikely that either mine will significantly <br /> fill with water after mining ceases. The workings of the King I <br /> Mine have been dry (with the exception of a short time in early <br /> 1986) and drillholes in the overburden have been dry. (Water for <br /> the mine's dust and fire control is pumped from an alluvial well <br /> and an old well of unknown depth.) A ground water point of <br />T <br />Basic CWQCC compliance in the Cliffhouse Sandstone is not warranted because <br />. <br />Standards regulation the King operation lacks the potential to negatively impact this unit. <br />for Ground s yes A regional aquifer about 250 ft. stratigraphically below the mine <br />Water 41.4 and workings, the Point Lookout Sandstone, was monitored between <br /> 41.5 late 2000 and early 2007 in the Haugen well about 5,000 ft. <br /> downgradient from the workings. Data show no impacts to the <br /> ground water in the Haugen well from mining at King. (The <br /> Haugen well has not been sampled since 2007 due to lack of <br /> access. The missing data does not impair the assessment of <br /> hydrologic impacts. Elimination of this well from the monitoring <br /> plan would require a Technical Revision to the permit application <br /> that demonstrates the well is not needed for evaluating hydrologic <br /> impacts.) <br /> The Point Lookout Sandstone is unlikely to be in hydraulic <br /> communication with the overlying King Mine workings through <br /> intergranular porosity due to impermeable shale and siltstone in the <br /> intervening Menefee Formation. Communicatiron through <br /> fractures or faults could occur if the mine workings flooded to a <br /> level that produces enough head to overcome the potentiometric <br /> head of native ground water in the faults and fractures. As <br /> previously explained, it seems unlikely the King I and H Mine will <br /> significantly fill with water during mining or after mining ceases. <br /> A ground water point of compliance in the Point Lookout <br /> Sandstone is not warranted because the King operation lacks the <br /> potential to negatively impact this unit. <br />Page 4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.