My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-01-25_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2009087
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Application Correspondence
>
Coal
>
C2009087
>
2010-01-25_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2009087
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:58:52 PM
Creation date
1/25/2010 9:47:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2009087
IBM Index Class Name
APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE
Doc Date
1/25/2010
Doc Name
Adequacy Response
From
Peabody Energy
To
DRMS
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.
/
16
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
SCCC Response: The information in Section 2.05.4(2)(b) Reclamation Costs, beginning on <br />page 2.05-35 of the original submittal, has been updated to reflect changes to the revised PSCM <br />facilities plan as well as provide additional detail to assist the Division in calculating reclamation <br />costs. The revised page and information is included in the revised PAP materials. <br />Section 2.05.6(3) <br />27.Page 30 of Robson and Stewart (1990) mentions gains in flow that Grassy Creek has in <br />its upper reach where it crosses outcrops of the Trout Creek Sandstone and Williams <br />Fork Formation. Please add an evaluation of the potential for the proposed mining to <br />affect these gains in flow and the flows from springs around the southwestern perimeter <br />of the permit area. <br />SCCC Response: A discussion of the potential for impacts to stream gains has been <br />incorporated on page 2.05-75. The hydrologic isolation of the under- and overlying aquifer units <br />and the separation of the 5-foot drawdown contour relative to the subcrop of the Wadge Coal <br />beneath the gaining reach of Grassy Creek eliminates the potential for effects to the stream <br />flows. <br />28. Please add a prediction of the maximum elevation of flooding in the workings after <br />mining ceases. <br />SCCC Response: The maximum elevations of flooding in the workings will be the maximum <br />elevation of the workings. A discussion of this is presented beginning on page 2.05-78. <br />29.Please add an estimate of the time duration of elevated dissolved solids in coal gob and <br />spoil leachates. Analogy with Williams and Clark's (1994) estimates would be adequate. <br />SCCC Response: An estimate of time duration for TDS to return to background conditions is <br />presented beginning on pages 2.05-82. <br />Section 2.06.8 <br />30.The Division will make a final determination regarding the potential for subirrigation and <br />the existence of an alluvial valley floor in Scotchman's Gulch, in the area near its <br />confluence with Grassy Creek. To aid the determination, please provide an east-west <br />oriented, diagrammatic hydrogeologic cross-section across Scotchman's Gulch, at a <br />location approximately 300 feet south of County Road 27. Please draw the cross-section <br />using a horizontal scale of approximately 1 inch = 500 feet, and an approximate vertical <br />scale of 1 inch = 10 feet. Please show the following features in the cross-section. <br />a) Land surface (topographic profile), <br />b) Soil, <br />c) Alluvium, <br />d) Expected water level in the Scotchman's Gulch channel during the month of July <br />(this month is assumed to be the month that plants are most likely to benefit from <br />subirrigation), <br />e) Elevation of the top of the saturated alluvium, <br />f) Inferred elevation of the capillary fringe in Scotchman's Gulch alluvium, and <br />9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.