Laserfiche WebLink
GBEA 2 <br /> 1. Per Rule 6.3.2, is any monitoring data available for the two streams within 200 feet of the affected lands?What <br /> is the estimated depth to groundwater? <br /> Both Waggoner Draw and West Douglas Creek are classified as intermittent. In the experience of both <br /> the management of Twin Buttes Land Company and Great Basin Environmental and Aquatics, West <br /> Douglas Creek is dry in a general sense below the confluence with West Creek for much of the summer <br /> during an average or drier water year. The stream flow is driven by the following: snowmelt (spring <br /> runoff), storm events with rapidly rising and falling stream flow (e.g. summer thunder storms), and the <br /> timing and variability of irrigation of various pastures and hay ground upstream. There is no known <br /> stream monitoring data available within the vicinity of the pit (e.g. 200 ft). This lack of data includes both <br /> stream flow and water quality. <br /> The hyporheic zone and the interface with the ground water, remains an unknown in both depth and <br /> lateral extent. Given that the system at this location is subject to long periods of dryness, storm events <br /> that are flashy in nature, and a spring run off of only a couple of months duration, there likely is only <br /> minimal recharge of groundwater by the stream. This could potentially indicate a very limited, perched, <br /> groundwater system associated with West Douglas Creek and the pit,that varies substantially over time. <br /> The southeastern base of the high walls elevation is 6239 (ft) and the streambed elevation at the culvert <br /> under HWY 139 is 6221 (ft), a difference of 18 ft. As previously stated, the relationship between stream <br /> flow and the hyporheic zone/groundwater relationship is unknown, thus the 18 ft may be relatively <br /> meaningless. <br /> There are four natural gas wells upstream from the Wagner Pit situated on the canyon floor (0.75-1.25 <br /> miles). The well logs associated with those wells might have provided a surrogate for the depth of <br /> groundwater. The information available on the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission <br /> website, was insufficient concerning the ground water depth. <br /> Table 1. Wells <br /> Natural Gas Wells On the Canyon Floor South of Wagner Pit <br /> NAD 83 UTM Zone 12N <br /> Well Name Location Name Status API Eastinq Northing <br /> 24-2 FEDERAL FEDERAL-63S102W PA 10307814 689515 6 4404388.3 <br /> 24SWSE <br /> ANDERSON GOV 01 ANDERSON GOV 01 PA 10307082 689804.5 4404489 9 <br /> 21348 21348-63S102W <br /> U S A U S A-63S102W 24SESE PA 10305045 6898511 4 4404188.9 <br /> BOX 668 GOV BOX 668 GOV-63S101W PA 10307156 6898511.4 4404358.2 <br /> 19SWSW <br /> One should note that the sandstone of the south facing High Wall and hill slope averages 650 feet thick <br /> and the associated coal units 450 feet. See: Barnum B.E., Scott Jr. R.W., Pantea M.P., 1997. Geologic and <br /> Structure Map of The Texas Mountain Quadrangle, Rio Blanco County, Colorado. 1:24,000, and Cashion. <br /> W. B. 1973. Geologic and Structure Map of The Grand Junction Quadrangle, Colorado and Utah. <br /> 1:250,000 <br /> Wagner Pit#M2023038,Owner& Operator: Twin Buttes Land Co LLC <br /> Wednesday, May 29, 2024 <br />