My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2024-01-22_PERMIT FILE - C1980007A (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2024-01-22_PERMIT FILE - C1980007A (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2024 10:03:00 AM
Creation date
2/15/2024 8:39:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007A
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
1/22/2024
Doc Name
pg 2.05-101 to 2.05-199
Section_Exhibit Name
2.05.5 & 2.05.6 Post-Mining Land Uses and Mitigation of Surface Coal Mining Operation Impacts
Media Type
D
Archive
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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
West Elk Mine <br />basin of Minnesota Creek. The next largest percentage is Lick Creek, which contains <br />approximately 19 percent of the South of Divide permit area. When evaluating the location of the <br />proposed E Seam longwall panels, the emphasis on Dry Fork becomes even more pronounced. <br />There are several distinct stream channels within the permit area. Each of these streams has been <br />identified with an index number which provides the basis for identifying stream channel <br />characteristics before and after mining, as presented in Exhibit 55A. WWE defined the existing <br />stream channel characteristics for various parameters, including channel slopes, peak flow rates for <br />a variety of frequencies of occurrence, flow velocities for each of the frequencies, sediment <br />transport regime, stage -discharge relationships, channel profiles and channel and overbank stability. <br />The existing channel shapes were related to the "dominant discharge," which has a two-year <br />frequency of occurrence. Sediment transport has been defined for each stream using the annual <br />sediment load and sediment loads associated with large floods. <br />Many of these streams (with the exception of Raven Creek, Deep Creek and Dry Fork as previously <br />described) within the South of Divide and Dry Fork permit areas are ephemeral, based on U.S. <br />Geological Survey topographic maps and extrapolation of gaged streatmflow data. Flows occur oily <br />in response to snowmelt and significant rainfalls. As discussed in Exhibits 559 55A, and 55B <br />WWE and Mr. Pemberton and Tetratech used a variety of statistically -based methods to detennine a <br />representative average annual yield value that would apply to these drainages. Exhibits 55, 55A <br />and 55B concludes that for the purpose of computing pre and post -mining average annual sediment <br />yields, an appropriate mean annual runoff for the subject basins of 475 acre-feet per square mile per <br />year should be adopted, even though site-specific data for the basins indicate a mean amlual runoff <br />of considerably less than this amount. <br />From the standpoint of water rights, analyses of water yield by WWE for the Division No. 4 <br />Colorado Water Court for the 1986 West Elk Mune water augmentation plan indicated that the <br />typical annual water yield for tributaries to the Dry Fork of Minnesota Creek were approximately <br />200 acre-feet per square mile per year. This is consistent with the average annual yield of the Dry <br />Fork basin, which is also about 200 acre-feet per square mile per year based on the available data. In <br />short, the appropriate average annual streamflow for the channels ranges from 200 and 475 acre-feet <br />per square mile per year, with 200 acre-feet per square mile per year being used for water rights <br />purposes and 475 acre-feet per square anile being used for sediment yield purposes. <br />In addition to computing average annual yields, WWE calculated floodflows for multiple return <br />frequency events. These are presented in Exhibits 55 and 55A. This is important because it is <br />necessary to evaluate how the stream channels will respond to large flood flows after subsidence has <br />occurred, especially with respect to sediment transport. <br />The projected subsidence for the stream channels was determined using output from the CISPM, <br />Version 2.0, calibrated us -Ina site-specific subsidence data. The str?ain cinainnels S�,ere analyzed to <br />determine the magnitude of change resulting from the change in channel slope. The changes to <br />stream channel characteristics were analyzed using standard procedures of the sedimentation and <br />1.05-188 Revised June 2005 PRIO. Januay 2006, March 2006: Rev. May 2006 PRIO,Nov. 2006 TRIO Sep. 2007 PR12; Feb 2008 PR12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.