Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 1 <br />Musick, Jason <br />From: Kaldenbach, Tom <br />Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:04 AM <br />To: Musick, Jason <br />Subject: Corrected Deserado PR-6 Hydrology Review <br />Jason, <br />Below I have corrected my email from two days ago to say White River, rather than Yampa River where the CHIA <br />is mentioned. <br />I have completed my review of the PR-6 application for compliance with the hydrology rules. <br />No new impacts to surface water can be expected from the mining proposed in PR-6 because the application <br />proposes no new surface disturbance, no new mine pumping, and no new subsidence of surface water features. <br />No new impacts to ground water can be expected from the mining proposed in PR-6 because the application <br />proposes continuing the downdip expansion of mine workings toward the axis of the Red Wash Syncline. If gob <br />leachate were to migrate from these new panels, the migration pathway would be the same as from previously <br />mined panels. Existing ground water monitoring wells are properly located for intercepting the leachate and for <br />assessing compliance with State and Federal ground water standards. <br />The absence of new hydrologic impacts from mining proposed in PR-6, indicates a revision of the White River <br />Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment is unnecessary. <br />The application indicates continued compliance with all hydrology rules; therefore, I have no adequacy questions <br />for the mine operator. The PR-6 application supports findings that adverse impacts to the hydrologic balance <br />within the permit boundary will be minimum amount that can be expected from a longwall mine and that material <br />damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit boundary will be prevented. <br />Tom Kaldenbach <br />5/1/2008