Laserfiche WebLink
youth Platte Combined Replacement Plan Page 5 of 19 <br />March 1, 2017 <br />Depletions <br />The depletions resulting from evaporation, water lost in mined product, dust control and <br />concrete batching at each site are shown in Table C below: <br />Table C - DeDletion Summary (all amounts in acre-feet) <br />° Evaporation is replaced by the City of Longmont under their augmentation plan decreed in water court case no. 09CW271. <br />e Lagged Dewatering Depletions, as shown in the table, are from past dewatering operations that have ceased but continue <br />to impact the stream system. <br />`This SWSP request assumed 15.0 acres of ground water would be exposed for the entire plan period. <br />d So long as the pit is continuously dewatered, the water returned to the stream system is considered to be adequate to <br />offset depletions attributable to the dewatering. <br />A stream depletion model using either the Glover method, or Stream Depletion Factor (SDF) <br />method was used to calculate the lagged depletions to the river. The Glover method uses four <br />aquifer input parameters for each site as follows: 1) X - distance (ft) from centroid of exposed <br />ground water to river, 2) W - distance (ft) from the aquifer boundary through the well to the river <br />channel, 3) T - transmissivity of the alluvial aquifer (in gallons per day per foot) between the well <br />and the river, and 4) S - specific yield (0.2 was used for all wells). The parameters used in the model <br />for each site are listed in Table D below. <br />Table D - Aquifer Characteristics <br />Site Name <br />T (gal/day/ft) <br />X (ft) <br />W (ft) OF (days) <br />Jeronimus Pit <br />100,000 <br />1,600 <br />Lagged <br />Hazeltine Pit <br />100,000 <br />1,200 <br />Water Lost in <br />Dust <br />Concrete <br />- <br />Lagged <br />Dewatering <br />Total <br />Site Name <br />Evaporation <br />Mined Product <br />Control <br />Batching <br />Total <br />Depletions <br />Depletions <br />Lagged <br />7,400 - <br />Distel Pit <br />50,000 <br />700 <br />5,300 - <br />Tull Pit <br />50,000 <br />Impacting <br />Depletions <br />W.W. Farms Pit <br />120,000 <br />900 <br />8,750 - <br />F -Street Pit <br />120,000 <br />2,600 <br />the Rive <br />Jeronimus Pit <br />15.00 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />15.00 <br />16.06 <br />0 <br />16.06 <br />Hazeltine Pit <br />40.18` <br />0 <br />1.98 <br />0 <br />42.16 <br />41.43 <br />Od <br />41.43 <br />Brighton Pit <br />13.67 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />13.67 <br />15.59 <br />3.40 <br />18.99 <br />Tucson South Pit <br />5.47 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />5.47 <br />5.47 <br />0 <br />5.47 <br />Wattenberg Pit <br />14.65 <br />54.48 <br />(1,851,000 tons) <br />1.98 <br />0 <br />71.10 <br />70.73 <br />Od <br />70.73 <br />Platte Valley Pit <br />200.43 <br />0 <br />10.61 <br />7.51 <br />218.5 <br />218.30 <br />0 <br />218.30 <br />Distel Pit <br />0& <br />0 <br />1.54 <br />3.31 <br />4.85 <br />4.47 <br />0.23 <br />4.70 <br />Tull Pit <br />2.58 <br />20.63 <br />(701,000 tons) <br />0.99 <br />0 <br />24.20 <br />14.58 <br />Od <br />14.58 <br />W.W. Farms Pit <br />100.44 <br />0 <br />0.99 <br />2.30 <br />103.73 <br />108.08 <br />0 <br />108.08 <br />F -Street Pit <br />1 71.79 <br />1 0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />71.79 <br />71.79 <br />0 <br />71.79 <br />Total <br />I-- <br />-- <br />-- <br />-- <br />570.47 <br />1 570.13 <br />° Evaporation is replaced by the City of Longmont under their augmentation plan decreed in water court case no. 09CW271. <br />e Lagged Dewatering Depletions, as shown in the table, are from past dewatering operations that have ceased but continue <br />to impact the stream system. <br />`This SWSP request assumed 15.0 acres of ground water would be exposed for the entire plan period. <br />d So long as the pit is continuously dewatered, the water returned to the stream system is considered to be adequate to <br />offset depletions attributable to the dewatering. <br />A stream depletion model using either the Glover method, or Stream Depletion Factor (SDF) <br />method was used to calculate the lagged depletions to the river. The Glover method uses four <br />aquifer input parameters for each site as follows: 1) X - distance (ft) from centroid of exposed <br />ground water to river, 2) W - distance (ft) from the aquifer boundary through the well to the river <br />channel, 3) T - transmissivity of the alluvial aquifer (in gallons per day per foot) between the well <br />and the river, and 4) S - specific yield (0.2 was used for all wells). The parameters used in the model <br />for each site are listed in Table D below. <br />Table D - Aquifer Characteristics <br />Site Name <br />T (gal/day/ft) <br />X (ft) <br />W (ft) OF (days) <br />Jeronimus Pit <br />100,000 <br />1,600 <br />23,000 - <br />Hazeltine Pit <br />100,000 <br />1,200 <br />23,000 - <br />Brighton Pit <br />- <br />- <br />- 10 <br />Tucson South Pit <br />75,000 <br />1,600 <br />4,600 - <br />Wattenberg Pit <br />80,000 <br />1,200 <br />5,500 - <br />Platte Valley Pit <br />150,000 <br />1,400 <br />7,400 - <br />Distel Pit <br />50,000 <br />700 <br />5,300 - <br />Tull Pit <br />50,000 <br />4,900 <br />9,300 <br />W.W. Farms Pit <br />120,000 <br />900 <br />8,750 - <br />F -Street Pit <br />120,000 <br />2,600 <br />5,000 - <br />Office of the State Engineer <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866,3581 <br />www. water. state.co. us <br />of. Co <br />y � <br />+ 't4E <br />J876 41 <br />