My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE135739
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
400000
>
PERMFILE135739
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:36:26 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 3:51:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
Two Dimensial Model of Trout Creek Sandstone Simulating Effects of Pumpage on Stream Flows
Section_Exhibit Name
TAB 16 ATTACHMENT 16-B
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
<br />Creek outcrop. This is due to the intermittent nature of flow in • <br />Hubberson Gulch and because the stream alluvium and/or Trout Creek <br />outcrop materials are probably unsaturated here. As a result, the <br />amount of water from intermittent stream flows will be independent <br />of, or not affected by the drawdown induced by pumpage. <br />Results <br />Stream Depletions <br />The modeling indicates that .long-term pumpage at both proposed <br /> <br />mines will cause stream depletions at the following outcrop areas: in <br />upper and lower Sage Creek, in Sage Creek Reservoir, in Grassy Creek, and <br />in the Yampa River above Grassy Creek (Tables 1, 2 and 3). Stream <br />depletion will not occur in Dry Creek because I) the flow in Hubberson <br />Gulch is intermittent where it crosses the outcrop of the Trout Creek • <br />sandstone, and 2) the sandstone (which dips approximately 11° to the north <br />directly west of IIW where Hubberson Gulch intercepts Dry Creek) is buried <br />approximately 600 feet or more beneath the Williams Fork formation. <br />Three separate simulations were performed. The first simulation <br /> <br />considered only the pumpage from the Seneca IIW well (Figures 4a, 4b, 5a, <br />and 5b). The second considered only the pumpage from the Yoast well <br />(Figures 6a, 6b, 7a, and 7b). The third included the combined effect of <br />the Seneca IIW and Yoast wells. The Seneca IIW well is turned on at the <br />beginning of mining (1990) and is <br />turned on at the beginning of the <br />turned off at the same time as th <br />in year 2004 (Figures 8a, 8b, 9a, <br />8333003.004 <br />pumped for 15 years; the Yoast well is <br />sixth year of mining (1996), and is <br />Seneca IIW well, at the end of mining <br />and 9b). In all three simulations, 20 <br />6 • <br />f:onTranc ins <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.