Laserfiche WebLink
West Etk Mine <br />If surface cracks were to form and if they were to intercept stock ponds or ephemeral channels, they <br />could potentially intercept surface water. Field evidence at the Section 17 cracks, evaluation of the <br />soft plastic shales occurring in the Barren Member above the F Seam, and theoretical subsidence <br />stress-strain relationships discussed elsewhere in the subsidence section of the application, each <br />strongly suggest that surface cracks would not extend to any great depth. <br />Two factors will also tend to heal the cracks, if they were to intercept water. First, the shales of the <br />Mesaverde Formation are known to have shrink-swell capacity. If the saturation of these shales <br />were to be increased, they would swell and this could be expected to help heal the crack. Secondly, <br />Mr. Jeff Hynes of the Colorado Geological Survey (1994) has stated that a greater factor in crack <br />healing would be increases in the plasticity of the shales as water saturations were increased. Simply <br />stated, as the shales become wetter, they soften and will squeeze into and heal the cracks. <br />An important consideration regazding mining in the South of Divide pemut revision azea is <br />potential impacts to the Minnesota Reservoir. The water rights implications of mining in the <br />tributary azea to the reservoir are discussed later in Section 2.05.6 (3)(b)(iii & viii) Water Rights. <br />MCC has committed to maintaining a buffer zone between active mining and the dam of over 1,000 <br />feet, which is greater than the distance utilizing the conservative angle of draw 25 degrees. With a <br />setback of this mazgin, there is no risk of either a crack developing under the reservoir or <br />aggravation of the existing structural problems with the dam as a result of MCC's mining activities. <br />Mining of longwall Panel 13 in the B Seam occurred at a distance of approximately 700 feet <br />from the reservoir with no adverse impacts to the structure. The additional distance for <br />longwaU Panel E9 fs very conservative given that the E Seam is stratigraphically higher and, <br />therefore, has a smaller area of influence at a given angle of draw. <br />Wetlands <br />Based upon inspection of conventional and infrared aerial photographs and reconnaissance-level <br />field investigation, the wetlands in the permit azea aze confined primarily to manmade stockponds in <br />the drainages. They aze intermittent in nature. Very few "natural" riparian wetlands aze evident. <br />The total acreage of potential jurisdictional wetlands in the permit area is approximately 7 acres (as <br />defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)). Field surveys conducted in August 1995 <br />verified this estimate. Field surveys in the South of Divide permit area fn 1996 found <br />additional wetland riparian areas along the valley bottoms within the Dry Fork and Lick <br />Creek drainages and in association with hillside spring and seeps (refer to Section 2.04.10). <br />Although most of the wetlands are found in drainage channels, there are small, isolated wetlands on <br />the hillsides where springs and seeps emerge. There aze other isolated wetlands in association with <br />landslides and slumps. In these instances, the wetlands are associated with the uppermost portion of <br />the landslide/slump, where a relatively flat azea has been created and water has tended to collect and <br />saturate the soils. <br />Impacts to wetlands are regulated under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Section 404, <br />and the accompanying regulations (including, in particulaz, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines) indicate that <br />proposed activities which result in dredging and/or filling regulatory wetlands need to obtain a <br />Section 404 permit prior to commencement of the activity. To qualify as a "regulatory wetland," the <br />1.05-174 Revised Juue 1005 PRIO <br />