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 />
|