Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment
of
Mud River
for
Hobet Mining, Inc.
Surface Mine #44
S-5003-06
Other mining in the Mud River watershed includes:
Hobet Mining Inc.
“21” Mine Complex
O-5010-97
S-5026-89 (Phase II), S-5080-88 (Phase II), S-32-85, S-5029-91 (Phase II),
S-5016-92, S-5022-95, S-5003-96 (Amendments 1, 2, & 3)
S-5011-01, S-5022-02, S-5004-04
U-5014-95 (Phase II), U-5007-98 (Phase I)
INTRODUCTION
Hobet Mining, Inc. seeks permission to permit a 221.00-acre surface mine. This mine is to
remove the Upper and Middle Kittanning coal seams, Upper Five Block, Upper Stockton Rider,
Upper Stockton, and Middle Stockton coal seams. Mining methods will be area mining and
contour mining, with contour mining primarily along the Stockton seams. No auger or highwall
mining is proposed with this operation.
The mine is located at a latitude of 38 o 05’ 55” and a longitude of 81 o 58’ 42” in the
Jefferson District of Lincoln County, approximately 3.1 miles southeast of Spurlockville. The
receiving streams are unnamed tributaries of /and Berry Branch of the Mud River and unnamed
tributaries of/and the Mud River.
This report will discuss the cumulative existing and proposed mining related water quantity
and quality impacts on the surface and groundwater as shown on the Cumulative Impact
Assessment (CIA) map. The Hobet #44 Surface Mine, Permit Number S-5003-06 lies entirely
within this defined CIA. Adjacent surface mines within the CIA are mining the same stratigraphic
sequences as the proposed Hobet #44 with similar mining methods.
Mining History in the CIA
There is very little pre-law, that is, pre-1977 mining in the CIA or adjacent watersheds.
There is deep mining in the Coalburg and Stockton seams. The mining in the CIA is primarily
surface mining and has been conducted from the 1980s to now. Coal seams in the CIA are
(beginning with the lowermost and proceeding upwards) the Eagle, Powellton (Alma), #2 Gas
(Peerless), Cedar Grove (Hernshaw), Fireclay (Chilton), Winifrede, Coalburg, Stockton, 5 Block
(Kittanning), 6 Block (Kittanning), and Freeport.
The pre-law mining that does exist is near Sugartree Branch. The Stockton coal seam was
contoured, augered and deep mined in the area. Known discharges from abandoned Stockton deep
mines are generally acidic with elevated levels of iron, manganese and aluminum. These Stockton
seam deep mine discharges are in the adjacent Horse Creek watershed of Little Coal River and do
not influence the Mud River. Abandoned Stockton contour operations also have acidic run-off into
the Mud River watershed, but these flow rates are very low and are believed to be insignificant to
the overall quality of the Mud River watershed.
The Hobet “21” mine complex encompasses all of the active permits listed earlier in this
report, as well as mines that have been Phase III released. The mining of the Hobet “21” complex
occurs within the same stratigraphic sequence that is proposed under S-5003-06: the Kittannings, 5Block, Stockton, Coalburg, and all associated riders.
There are problematic discharges associated with some of the mining in these strata. Acid
Base Accounting results indicate there is potentially acid/toxic drainage potential from sandstone
located in the CIA. This sandstone is green upon exposure. It requires specific special handling on
adjacent permits, including the S-5003-96 and its associated amendments and S-5016-92.
Selenium handling requirements are in place for Westridge South #1 Surface Mine, S-5004-04.
The northern valley fill of S-32-85 that flows into Pond 4 of this permit (located in an
adjacent watershed) has a history of problematic iron discharges. This particular permit is
revegetated, is not moving coal, and did not have a material-handling plan in place at the time of its
issuance.
The Ballard Fork Surface Mine (S-5022-02 is approved for mining the Chilton and all
associated splits. This mine is not started, but the acid base accounting and sulfur form data in the
application indicates there will be no problematic discharges associated with the overburden.
Hobet has the Alma No. 3 Deep Mine (U-5005-99) in the Alma coal seam. Part of the mine
reserve underlies the headwaters of Sugartree Branch. This seam is locally high in sulfur (up to
4%) and no up-dip mining is permitted.
The only active deep mining in the CIA is in the Stockton seam (U-5014-95) and Coalburg
seam (U-5007-98). U-5007-98 is in Phase I release and is located, in part, below the proposed U5003-06 mining. U-5014-95 is in Phase II release. The water quality reports for these mines
indicate that, while pH and other metals are compliant, Selenium discharges are elevated. The deep
mines are contributing both deep mine permits share outlets with surface mines, and it is unclear
how much Selenium.
GEOLOGY
The rocks exposed in the CIA area of the Hobet “21” Mine Complex belong to the
Allegheny Formation of Middle Pennsylvanian Age and the Kanawha Formation of the Pottsville
Group, Lower to Middle Pennsylvanian Age. The Allegheny and Kanawha Formations consist of
intercalated shale, sandy shale, sandstone and coal seams.
The Kanawha Black Flint is a marker bed that represents the division of the Kanawha and
Allegheny Formations. Coal seams in the CIA that lie above the Kanawha Black Flint are the #5
Block, and the Kittanning coal seams. All seams below this marker bed belong to the Kanawha
Formation.
The dip of the coal in the area of the proposed operations is about 1% to the northwest.
There is an unnamed syncline located in the watershed, and the Warfield Anticline is located
approximately 7.5 miles southeast of the defined CIA. The influence of these structures features is
indicated in the dip of the strata.
Greater than 2.7 million tons of coal are proposed to be removed through mountaintop and
contour mining methods in the Upper and Middle Kittanning coal seams, Upper Five Block, Upper
Stockton Rider, Upper Stockton, and Middle Stockton coal seams. Localized testing indicates the
Upper Kittanning and Upper Stockton Rider seams are high in total sulfur. These seams will be
completely removed in the areas where they are mined.
Acid Base Accounting for the permit area indicates that the immediate overburden and
interburden associated with the Kittannings, overburden associated with the Upper Stockton
(including carbonaceous material and a sandstone) will be specially handled and kept isolated from
watercourses. All interburden associated with the 5-Block is considered potentially toxic.
Interburden associated with the seams and all pit cleanings will be specially handled.
There is sufficient durable rock that is not potentially acid/toxic to construct under drains
for the proposed valley fills. There will be two fills constructed for the storage of excess
overburden generated by the mining operation. According to Section R of the SMA, the fills will
permanently impact the following lengths of stream:
Valley Fill ID
Valley Fill #1
Length of Stream
Permanently Impacted
(feet)
859
Valley Fill #2
832
Stream to be Impacted
Unnamed tributary of
Mud River
Unnamed tributary of
Mud River
The location and the size of these fills are justified, as no practical alternative has been
established for the excess spoil storage placement. The 401 application details this reasoning.
A topsoil substitute is requested in this application; no lime addition will be necessary for
the material designated as topsoil replacement. The material is designated by a Soil Scientist to be
an equal or better growth medium to the native soils.
The groundwater aquifers of this CIA are typical of those found in southern West Virginia.
The significant aquifers in this area are stratigraphic aquifers and aquifers associated with alluvial
deposits and streambed fracture systems.
There is limited groundwater communication between ground water aquifers in the CIA
area of this report due to the steep regional morphology and cyclic layers of shale, which inhibit
most vertical water movement. The ground water aquifers become vertically interconnected
through secondary porosity generated by fracturing, which commonly occurs in strata above mined
coal seams.
The most heavily used aquifers in the area are the streambed aquifers. The interaction
between the surface water flowing in the streams and the water in the alluvial aquifers is extensive.
It is not uncommon to see similar or identical water quality in a stream and its associated alluvial
aquifer.
Groundwater movement takes place primarily along the alluvial materials and underlying
fracture systems found under most streambeds. Large volumes of water are often found traveling in
the sand, gravel and underlying streambed fracture systems 30 to 70 or more feet below the surface.
The other primary source of groundwater movement in the Mud River watershed is zones of
fractured and/or porous strata. These most commonly are layers of sandstone and coal. The
movement of water along these aquifers is in the direction of least potential, almost always being in
a down dip direction. The storage capacity and movement of water in coal seam aquifers can be
greatly increased if that coal seam is deep mined due to the increased porosity and permeability
generated by the additional void space. Fracturing of surrounding strata can often alter water
movement and increase the interconnectedness of stratigraphic zone aquifers.
There is a smaller amount of groundwater associated with hillside stress relief fracture
systems. These limited aquifers transport water down hillsides and into local streams and streambed
aquifers. Due to the relatively small amount of water in these hillside aquifers, there are no known
individuals using such a source for their primary water supply.
The mountainous terrain and cyclic occurrences of low permeability strata (namely shale) of
the area results in perched stratigraphic aquifers. The amount of water these aquifers transport can
be significantly increased by underground mining activity. Perched aquifers are usually sandstone
and/or coal seams with high permeability. Depending on seasonal levels of the water table and the
local geology, they may feed local springs or simply flow through the near surface fracture joint
system. This directly impacts local surface water quantity and quality.
The receiving streams for the proposed operation do not possess habitats for rare or
endangered species, although the Mud River is classified as a high quality stream by the WVDNR
based on the Wildlife Lands Inquiry Response included in the application. The results of the
benthic survey indicate the sites tested for this proposed permit are marginal to suboptimal. Water
chemistry analysis presented for all biostations did not note any extreme values that would indicate
low water quality. The benthic analysis was performed by Sturm Environmental Services and is
included in the associated 401 application.
HYDROLOGIC CONCERNS
Surface Water
There have been non-compliant discharges from the adjacent Hobet ‘21’ permits that have
resulted in stream discoloration and alteration of the original baseline conditions. These alterations
are believed to be primarily caused by the green sandstone that commonly occurs throughout much
of the mining area. Material handling plans that have been implemented on subsequent permits has
resulted in discharges that are compliant with regards to most metals, including Iron and
Manganese. A handling plan that addresses potentially acidic and toxic overburden is in place for
this permit.
Siltation of streams due to the increased disturbed area created by blasting of overburden
can also become problematic without sufficient sediment control structures. Ditches and ponds are
designed for the permit area that will prevent excessive siltation to the receiving streams, helping to
minimize any concern for increased Total Dissolved Solids.
Removal of vegetation and increased surface area created by blasting during the mining
process is another hydrologic concern. The Surface Water Run Off Analysis (SWROA) submitted
as part of section J-6 of the mining application demonstrates that surface water run off will not be
increased by the proposed mining. As detailed in Wunch 1996, large surface mines such as this
retain water with mine spoil over a greater period of time than most soils, thus flows below valley
fills should be less flashy in nature. Construction of the fills should not increase the potential for
flooding. The over all flow output should remain the same over a long period of time, because the
input flow source remains the same.
Ground water
There are groundwater users located with the ½-mile radius of the mining permit. Based on
well depths, the well users are utilizing the alluvial aquifer associated with the Mud River. The
mining proposed under S-5003-06 will occur at elevations higher than the utilized portions of the
alluvial aquifer. Two mine through area that will affect the ephemeral reaches of unnamed
tributaries of the Mud River will not significantly impact quantity or quality of the alluvial aquifer
as a whole.
The mining process will eradicate any perched aquifers located in the proposed mining area.
There are no seeps indicated in the baseline water analysis and there were no aquifers encountered
during drilling. Therefore, the likelihood of any stratigraphic aquifers being interrupted is unlikely.
BASELINE WATER CONDITIONS
Surface Water
Data collected in the CIA reflects a relatively stable water quality has been established,
even with the onset of new surface and deep mines. Water analyses from previously approved
Surface Mine Applications and DMR’s were used to determine the water quality of the CIA over
time. Baseline data in the watershed has been collected in 1985, 1990, 1994, 1999, 2002, through
to 2006.
Ballard Fork flows into Mud River and has been monitored and shows ambient water
quality. NPDES permit associated with S-32-85 indicated in its reissuance that Selenium is out of
compliance. This is not reflected in heavy metal analyses submitted for the Ballard Fork Surface
Mine. The pH, Iron, Manganese, and Aluminum concentrations are all compliant. The sulfate
levels are low (<100 ppm). The Ballard Fork Surface Mine has not been started, and at the time of
this writing there are no DMRs for reference.
Lukey Fork has ambient water quality. This tributary of Mud River has compliant pH, Iron,
Manganese, and Aluminum concentrations. The concentration of Sulfates has increased from its
pre-mining condition since the onset of mining of permits S-5004-04 in this sub watershed.
DMR analysis indicates there is three outlets being monitored for Selenium which discharge
into Lukey Fork from the Westridge South #1 Surface Mine (S-5004-04). The three outlets have
been monitored since their installation in late 2005, early 2006. All three outlets indicate the
Selenium is compliant except for one month. For outlet 004 and 008, the Selenium exceeded 5 ppb
in February 2006, but the concentrations dropped to 0.6 ppb and have remained there subsequently.
Outlet 006 was out of compliance only in May 2006. It is believed the initial exposure of Selenium
laden material may have contributed to the increased concentrations at these times, but the timely
manner of material handling and appropriate placement of potentially toxic material has prevented
Selenium from becoming a continual non-compliant problem.
Stanley Fork has water quality is compliant with regards to Iron, Manganese, Aluminum,
and pH. The concentration of Sulfates and Total Suspended Solids peaked during mining, but has
since decreased to near pre-mining conditions. Stanley Fork has several surface mine operations
adjacent to it. Mines S-5080-88 and S-5026-89 are in Phase II release. Pond 21 associated with S5026-89 had Selenium out of compliance during the last NPDES reissuance, and several outlets
associated with S-5016-92 that discharge into Stanley Fork are non-compliant with Selenium.
Heavy metal analysis for this tributary prior to mining was not available. There are no material
handling plans that address Selenium for permits along this stream.
Sugartree Branch has overall ambient water quality, with Iron, Manganese, Aluminum, and
pH within compliance. Discharges from S-5016-92 are often out of compliance with regards to
Selenium. While there are material handling plans for S-5016-92 that address potentially acid/toxic
material and pit cleanings, Selenium was not addressed for S-5016-92 or its Amendment 1.
Amendment 2 does have a Selenium overburden-handling plan.
Berry Branch has good water quality throughout its length and in its tributaries. There are
no analyses submitted as part of the baseline or NPDES permit that indicate there are any
problematic concentrations of any metals. The active Berry Branch Surface Mine (S-5002-03) does
not appear to be impacting the water quality of the stream.
Connelly Branch receives discharges from the Westridge (S-5003-96) surface mine. The
baseline analyses indicate the water quality throughout the length of the stream is compliant with
regards to Iron, Manganese, Aluminum, and pH. There have been increases with regards to
Sulfates and Total Dissolved/Suspended Solids as mining has progressed. Several outlets
associated with S-5003-96 (NPDES permit WV1016776) are out of compliance with Selenium.
Mud River has been monitored for many years, and analyses indicate that mining is having
an affect on the main steam of Mud River. While pH values have no definitive trend, Iron
concentration appears to increase slightly downstream. Magnesium and Aluminum do not appear
to be cumulatively increasing through the length of the Mud River, but Sulfate concentration
steadily increases downstream. Tributaries to Mud River that have no mining influence have lower
values of sulfates, Aluminum, Iron, Manganese, and Selenium. The overall quality is good, but
Selenium does appear to be cumulatively increasing downstream and is consistently higher than 5
ppb.
As a whole, the CIA watershed shows impacts from mining in the water quality, but the
alterations have not resulted in significant impairment. The alkaline nature of the waters has
prevented accumulations of most metals. Throughout the watershed there are sporadic ‘hits’ of
different metals, including Silver and Chromium that are not consistent and indicate no trends. The
only heavy metals that consistently appear in the water analyses are Zinc and Selenium. These
metals are associated with sulfides, and their occurrence in a watershed with active mining is not
unexpected.
No benthic analyses specify any parameters of the water quality impairing the benthic
populations. Sulfates and Total Dissolved/Suspended Solids do show an increase during mining,
but these impacts are common and are not degrading the hydrologic balance. No tributaries and no
section of the main stem of Mud River show any evidence of subsidence or decreased water
quantity.
Groundwater
The groundwater in the alluvium of the Mud River is chemically similar to that of the
surface water, except the sulfate and Selenium concentrations are noticeably lower. This is due to
influence of mining discharges on the surface water while the subsurface aquifers remain
undisturbed. There are no noticeable trends in any measured parameters in the alluvial aquifer.
The only identified stratigraphic aquifer of any extent is that in the Coalburg Deep Mine (U5007-98) and that in the Stockton (U-5014-95). The water analyses provided do not indicate either
of these mines has non-compliant discharges with regards to any parameter. Both sites are
associated with NPDES permits that are also associated with surface mines, and these DMRs
indicate some Selenium hits. It is not clear that the deep mines have contributed to the Selenium
concentration.
MATERIAL DAMAGE LIMITS
This permit has 11 new outlets that will be constructed under NPDES permit number
WV1022890. Discharges will be into unnamed tributaries of/and Mud River and unnamed
tributaries of/and Berry Branch. Outlets 001 and 002 are in-stream outlets and will be assigned
water quality limits. Other outlets will be given technology-based limits, with report only for
Selenium on outlets discharging into Berry Branch and Selenium limits assigned to those
discharging in to Mud River. The rationale for these limits include data provided in BWQ
sampling and for Selenium on adjacent permits.
Monitoring of the surface and groundwater is outlined in sections U-1 and U-2 of the permit
application. The sites chosen to monitor surface water include sites 112, UBB2, 119, and 119B.
These sites are used in the baseline monitoring of this permit and will readily reflect any changes to
the surface water quality or quantity. This monitoring in conjunction with the monitoring required
under the NPDES permit will provide sufficient information regarding the affect of mining S-500306 throughout the course of the mine’s life.
Groundwater sites chosen for during mining monitoring are sites 85G-2 and BB-004. Site
85G-2 is in the alluvial aquifer and BB-004 is deep mine discharge from the Coalburg seam,
located stratigraphically lower than the lowest seam to be mined under S-5003-06. These two sites
will reflect any changes to the two primary groundwater aquifers located near the proposed mining.
Water analyses ware included for all identified groundwater users. The material damage criteria
used for groundwater is Title 47CSR1 Table E.
The threshold-monitoring site for this application is located in the Mud River. This site,
designated Station TS97, is located downstream of the proposed mining. This site encompasses a
drainage watershed that reflects the cumulative affect of existing and prior mining in the watershed.
Streams located in the CIA that are on the 303(d) impairment list include Mud River, Left
Fork of Mud River, Sugartree Branch, and Ballard Fork of Mud River are all listed for CNABiological issues. Mud River, Sugartree Branch, and Stanley Fork are also on the 2004 303(d) list
for failure to remain in compliance with Selenium.
MATERIAL DAMAGE POTENTIAL OF THE OPERATION
This operation proposes the installation of two permanent valley fills, permanent mine
through areas, permanent construction of access/haul road to mining area, the construction of two
temporary drainage control structures, the construction of two erosion control structures and the
construction of one temporary sump and culvert replacement. All this activity is to facilitate the
mineral removal proposed under S-5003-06.
470 feet of intermittent/perennial and 3,396 feet of ephemeral stream will be permanently
impacted by this mining activity. 300 feet of intermittent/perennial and 210 feet of ephemeral
stream will be temporarily impacted by this mining. Spoil placement has been restricted to the
highest sections of the watershed, namely the ephemeral reaches, as much as possible.
The design of the mine plan takes into consideration the potential impacts of mining on the
hydrologic balance. The water quality should not be significantly altered. Potentially acid/toxic
material has been identified through geochemical analyses and the material-handling plan in the
application clearly defines what material requires special handling. Previous mining in the same
strata with similar handling plans indicates the isolation of potentially acid/toxic producing
overburden results in compliant water quality at discharge sites.
The encapsulation of material generating waters with high concentrations or most metals,
such as Iron and Manganese, is well established in this watershed. There are adjacent permits to S5003-06 that currently discharge waters that are out of compliance with Selenium. The permits that
are non-compliant with regards to Selenium either have no material-handling plan that addresses
Selenium (all permits are handling pit cleanings, but Selenium testing of rock core was not required
prior to 2004) or the discharges are associated with more than one permit and the source of the
Selenium is undetermined. The surface mining in this watershed has already produced enough
spoil to influence the Selenium concentration of the waters. Isolation of Selenium laden
overburden should alleviate any additional concentrations being contributed to the hydrologic
balance, as this handling has proven effective with regards to other geochemical parameters.
The placement of the fills in primarily ephemeral waters reduces the impact of this mining
plan on the hydrologic regime. The physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the
substrate should not be significantly affected for the following reasons:
Baseline benthic macro invertebrate stations have been established as indicated on the
Stream Delineation Map along with associated data provided in the 401 Certification Application.
These data are representative of the aquatic life to be either permanently or temporarily impacted
by the mining operation.
The substrate under the proposed fill locations will be covered by fill material, and therefore
eliminated. The biological communities that exist as indicated in the benthic survey will also be
eliminated within the footprint of the fills. The impacts within the footprint of the fills will be
permanent. The fills will have rock under drains that will likely yield a discharge of water
throughout most of the year. The substrate between the toe of the fill and the sediment structure
will receive deposition of sediment; this could temporarily limit the quality of benthic habitat in
that area of the stream during the operational phases of the proposal. It is anticipated that chemical
changes to the substrate will be limited. The pond will create a lentic habitat (standing water) as
opposed to a lotic habitat (running water) of the stream. It is reasonable to expect a benthic macro
invertebrate community suitable to a lentic environment will develop in the pond. This affect will
only be temporary because the pond will be removed. Upon removal, the pond area will be
reclaimed in accordance with the Stream Restoration Plan found in the 401 Certification
Application. After reclamation the restored stream segments should be capable of supporting an
aquatic ecosystem comparable to that of the baseline (pre-mining) conditions.
The post mining land use for the permit is industrial/commercial. In conjunction with the
Lincoln County Commission, a portion of the area will be used to create a horse park and show
facility with a campground area to be utilized by groups or individuals utilizing the horse park. The
variance area will include flat or gently rolling areas on the top of the re-graded backfill area,
surrounded by stabilized, graded and re-forested out slopes.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN THE CIA
A Trend Station, Station 097, is used to define the CIA. This CIA entirely encompasses the
mining proposed under S-5003-06. The adjacent mining in the CIA is in the same strata that are
proposed for removal in the S-5003-06 mine plan, therefore water quality discharges from this
mine area should be similar.
All surface and groundwater baseline sites for this application have a heavy metal analysis
provided, as well as heavy metal analyses provided for the biostations during the benthic analysis.
Nickel and Zinc were in all analyses, but within compliant limits. Copper was in several samples.
The most notable trend is in Selenium. The main stem of Mud River has consistently out of
compliant Selenium concentrations. The undisturbed tributaries and Berry Branch do not have
Selenium out of compliance, nor do the groundwater baseline sites.
Pre-law mines in the Stockton coal seam do not have good quality. These discharges are of
low flow and their overall contribution to the hydrologic balance is diluted. The isolation process
of questionable overburden has resulted in a decrease in the metals that are associated with such
overburden, specifically Iron. There is so much existing mining in the watershed that does not
address Selenium overburden, it is not immediately known if the Selenium in the water is due only
to active mining or if the Selenium has accumulated due to previous mining. Isolation of Selenium
overburden will prevent further contribution of Selenium to the waters.
Groundwater in the alluvial aquifers is similar to that of the surface water. Deep mines in
the area have provided conduits of groundwater transport that extend throughout the footprint of the
mine. The Coalburg and Stockton seams have been deep mined, and these mines have altered the
original aquifer characteristics of the coal seams by increasing the porosity and permeability of the
strata.
EVALUATION OF THE HYDROLOGIC RECLAMATION PLAN
The applicant has submitted a Hydrologic Reclamation Plan that complies with Section
3.22.f of the regulations. A plan has been submitted in Section J-11 of the application. Material
damage concerns outside the CIA are sufficiently addressed. Measures that will be taken to ensure
the quality and quantity of the waters in the CIA include following the approved mining plan,
proper placement of overburden, following and installing sediment structures as per the approved
drainage plan, prompt reclamation and seeding of reclaimed areas, and promptly addressing any
water quality problems that may arise.
The materials handling plan submitted in Section O-8 adequately addresses the concerns of
potentially acid/toxic material and its placement as to prevent degradation to the hydrologic regime.
Similar handling plans on adjacent permits that address the green sandstone of this CIA have
accomplished their intent of preventing acid/toxic drainage with regards to the sandstone’s
deficiencies. The handling of Selenium overburden should have the same effect.
The proposed sediment control structure designed to handle the surface run-off of this
permit is designed to store 0.125 acre-ft. of sediment for each acre of disturbed area, and the
Surface Water Run Off Analysis submitted in Section J-6 indicates there will be no increased run
off during or post mining practices. Surface water that passes over the area disturbed by the mining
operation will pass through the sediment pond or sediment ditches prior to discharging into any
receiving streams. The pond and ditch discharges will be monitored regularly to ensure
compliance.
MATERIAL DAMAGE FINDING
The proposed operation has been designed to prevent material damage tot the hydrologic
balance outside the permit area. The applicant must follow the materials handling plan and employ
Best Management Practices in order to preserve the current hydrologic conditions. The applicant
appears to have addressed all requirements of the DMM-4 form and the regulations. By following
the permit conditions detailed in this report and in the permit application S-5003-06, there should
be no material damage caused by the mining of this permit.
Cheryl E. Palczynsky, M.S.
Geologist II, Region V
REFERENCES
Wunch, D., J. Dinger, P. Taylor, D. Carey and D. Graham., 1996, Hydrogeology,
Hydrogeochemistry, and Spoil Settlement at a Large Mine-Spoil Area in Eastern Kentucky:
Starfire Tract: Kentucky Geologic Survey, ser 11,Report of Investigation 10, 49p.