My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-03-07_REVISION - C1981035 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981035
>
2013-03-07_REVISION - C1981035 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:14:36 PM
Creation date
3/7/2013 1:22:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981035
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/7/2013
Doc Name
Proposed Decision and Findings of Compliance
From
DRMS
To
GCC Energy, LLC
Type & Sequence
RN6
Email Name
MLT
SB1
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.
/
31
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
Cliffhouse. Therefore, if the workings fill with water, and subsidence fractures <br />convey that water to the Cliffhouse Sandstone, then impacts could possibly occur to <br />the water quality in the Cliffhouse Sandstone aquifer down -dip from the workings, if <br />mine water is lower quality than ambient ground water. Significant flow from the <br />workings to the Cliffhouse through subsidence fractures is unlikely, however, <br />because head in the overlying (higher elevation) Cliffhouse would be greater than the <br />head exerted by the mine water. The State Engineer's records show two wells have <br />been completed in the Cliffhouse Sandstone approximately one mile downgradient <br />from the King I Mine workings (the L. Paulek and G. Paulek wells). <br />Menefee Formation Like the Cliffhouse Sandstone, mining impacts to the Menefee <br />Formation are improbable because it is unlikely the workings of the King I and 11 <br />Mines will fill with water. <br />Ground water points of compliance are not warranted for the Hay Gulch alluvium, <br />the Menefee Formation, the Cliffhouse Sandstone, or the Point Lookout Sandstone <br />because, as explained above, the King I and 11 Mines lack the potential to negatively <br />impact these units. <br />Surface Water Effects <br />With the exception of two small area exemptions, all runoff from the disturbed area <br />at the mine site will be routed through sediment ponds. Effects of mining on this <br />water will involve changes in the magnitude and duration of runoff and changes in <br />water quality. <br />The effects on water quantity are expected to be minimal. A decrease in <br />permeability due to the construction or roads and buildings can be expected to cause <br />an increase in runoff amounts. The rate of runoff will increase over natural <br />conditions because of the increased efficiency of conveyance channels. However, <br />these effects are moderated by the detention of runoff in the pond and subsequent <br />evaporation of pond water. In general, only slight changes in the hydrologic balance <br />of surface water are expected due to the underground mining operations proposed at <br />the King I and 11 Mines. <br />Changes in water quality can be expected to occur as a result of mining. Increases in <br />erosion rates are expected from the disturbance of soils and vegetation; however, <br />these are compensated by deposition of sediment in the sediment ponds. An increase <br />in total dissolved solids (TDS) may occur from well water pumped and used for dust <br />suppression and other operational use. Evaporation of water standing in the ponds <br />may also cause an increase in TDS, although the increase above background <br />concentrations (1500 -2000 mg/1) is not expected to be large. <br />The Division has determined that probable hydrologic effects on surface water <br />identified above will not preclude use of the water below the point of discharge from <br />the mine. This conclusion is based on the small and infrequent flows relative to the <br />In <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.