Laserfiche WebLink
• historically been measured in cross-cut 26 of the 6 Right Gateroad, however, 6 Rt was sealed in 2001. Thus, no <br />measurements aze available for 2001. Historical data is available in previous AHRs. The last flows measured for <br />2000 showed seasonal variations, with an average annual flow of approximately 65 gpm (as presented on Table <br />77 of the 2000 AHR). <br />4.0 SUBSIDENCE IMPACTS <br />Foidel Creek: has been undermined and subsided by TCC's mining of the 9 Rt, 8 Rt, 7 Rt, and to a very limited <br />extent the 6 Rt panels. Mininao in 12 Rt was completed in 2001, and subsequently sealed in September 2001. <br />Associated subsidence affects from 12 Rt should become more evident during monitoring/surveying for the 2002 <br />water year. Recent 2001 subsidence survey results for 12 Rt are discussed below. Figure 135 provides the <br />location of the creek in relation to the previously mentioned longwall panels. The figure also reflects the porsding <br />that occurred over the panels. As noted on Figure 135, the largest azea of ponding resulted from mining of 7 Rt. <br />Pond 4 had the greatest surface area, approximately 3 acres, of all of the ponds over the mined area Field <br />observations indicate that this pond dries up in late summer. It appears that this is due to the fact that the creek is <br />not deeply incised and after the completion of spring run-off the flooded areas quickly dries as the creek returns <br />to its historic channel. The 2001 field observations indicated that the area did not flood as extensively as it did in <br />2000. <br />Pond 1, approximately 0.8 acres, resulted from the mining of the 9 Rt panel, and has remained since it fast <br />formed in 1446. The pond is located th a segment of the creek, which is more deeply incised, thus limiting the <br />extent of ponding. The 2001 field observations reveal that the pond exists, although it is difficult to determine if <br />it is decreasing in areal extent. <br />Pond 2, approximately 0.3 acres, is the smallest of the goup, reflecting the creek is deeply incised, which field <br />observations verify. The 2001 field observations revealed that the pond exists, although it is difficult to determine <br />if it is decreasing in areal extent. Likewise, pond 3 is small in azea extent, approximately 0.5 acres, and the 2001 <br />field observations reveal that the pond exists. <br />The upstream and downstream flow regimes were reviewed to determine if stream flows were being impacted by <br />the urining operation. Except for the disruption in flow associated with the 9 Rt Panel, no impacts have been <br />observed. Table 73, Flow Comparison, Upstream and Downstream on Foidel Creek over Panel 5 Rt through 9 Rt, <br />indicates that during the majority of the year the downstream site flows are greater than the upstream. Given the <br />lazger size of the drainage basin for the downstream site this increased flow is to be expected. During the taer <br />summer months and fall months the flows at the downstream site are slightly lower than the upstream site. This <br />could indicate that the creek is recharging the bedrock units located in the Foidel Creek drainage. <br />The water quality, as presented on Table 74, compares sites 8 and 900 and shows that EC and TDS both improve <br />as water flows downstream from site 8 to 900. All of the other parameters do not show arty significant <br />differences between the up and downstream sites. <br />]4 <br />