My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-05-16_HYDROLOGY - C1981014
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Hydrology
>
Coal
>
C1981014
>
2013-05-16_HYDROLOGY - C1981014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:20:30 PM
Creation date
8/23/2013 7:53:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
Hydrology
Doc Date
5/16/2013
Doc Name
Hydrologic Analysis by W. D. Corley Jr.
From
W.D. Corley
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
Email Name
JHB
DIH
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.
/
6
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
FURTHER INVESTIGATION <br />We believe that incomplete monitoring of surface and ground water with erroneous compilation of <br />data and that insufficient subsidence monitoring of Newlin Creek are represented in the Annual <br />Hydrology Report of 2012 leading to a biased view of diminished harm to the surface and ground water <br />in the Southfield Mine area. As initially stated, all of what we have presented as facts are from written <br />reports or can be duplicated by measurements with the appropriate instruments. Will the final answer <br />be written in the future when Newlin Creek never flows past the center of Section 19? Is there <br />additional testing or investigation that can be done to show that pillaring under Newlin Creek has not <br />caused subsidence, additional inflow into the Southfield Mine, and, most importantly, an increase in <br />surface outflow at Second Alkali Creek? In the event that pillaring was permitted beneath Newlin Creek, <br />was that permission granted assuming that Newlin Creek would not be disturbed? What is the <br />consequence if Newlin Creek has been disturbed? With the written evidence and objective <br />measurements we have presented, we believe that the responsibility is Energy's to demonstrate that <br />the pillaring of the 1' /z North Panel caused no hydrological damage; statements that Newlin Creek has <br />always flowed in a manner as it did in 2012 appear to be only opinions. If we are correct, the entire <br />watershed of Newlin Creek west of the Southfield Mine except for the water diverted by the Florence <br />waterline has been diverted to Second Alkali Creek, a completely different tributary to the Arkansas <br />River. Does that matter? That answer may be yes considering that the Newlin Creek water quality at <br />NC2 is probably far better than the water discharged at the surface in Second Alkali Creek which has <br />never been monitored or analyzed so far as we know. In addition we are not aware if there are any <br />water rights affected downstream on Newlin Creek or Hardscrabble Creek since we are not able to <br />search the water right owners on the Division of Water Resources web site. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.