My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE118274
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE118274
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:13:57 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 5:00:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007A
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
11/16/2006
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.
/
95
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 <br />the proposed E Seam longwall panels, the emphasis on Dry Fork becomes even more <br />pronounced. <br />There aze several distinct stream channels within the pernvt azea. 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 SSA. WWE defined the existing <br />stream channel chazacteristics 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-dischazge relationships, channel profiles and channel and overbank stability. <br />The existing channel shapes were related to the "dominant discharge," which has atwo-yeaz <br />frequency of occurrence. Sediment transport has been defined for each stream using the annual <br />sediment load and sediment loads associated with lazge 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 permit area are ephemeral, based on U.S. Geological Survey <br />topographic maps and extrapolation of gaged streamflow data. Flows occur only in response to <br />snowmelt and significant rainfalls. As discussed in Exhibits 55 and SSA, WWE and Mr. <br />Pemberton used a variety of statisfically-based methods to detemune a representative average <br />annual yield value that would apply to these drainages. Exhibits 55 and SSA concludes that for the <br />. purpose of computing pre and post-mining average annual sediment yields, an appropriate mean <br />annual runoff for the subject basins of 475 acre-feet per squaze mile per year should be adopted, <br />even though site~peci&c data for the basins indicate a mean annual runoff of considerably less than <br />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 Mine 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 squaze mile per year based on the available data. Iu <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 yeaz being used for water rights <br />purposes and 475 acre-feet per squaze mile being used for sediment yield purposes. <br />In addition to computing average annual yields, W WE and Mr. Pemberton calculated floodflows for <br />multiple return frequency events. These aze presented in Exhibits 55 and SSA. This is important <br />because it is necessary to evaluate how the stream channels will respond to lazge flood flows after <br />subsidence has 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 using site-specific subsidence data. The stream channels were analyzed to <br />determine the magnitude of change resulting from the change in channel slope. The changes to <br />stream channel chazacteristics were analyzed using standard procedures of the sedimentation and <br />2.05-1 B8 Revised June 2005 PRIG, January 2006, March 2006; Rev. May 2006 PR/0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.