My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP40291
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP40291
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:29:17 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 8:41:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
1998 ANNUAL HYDROLOGY REPORT
Annual Report Year
1998
Permit Index Doc Type
HYDROLOGY REPORT
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.
/
47
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
Mountain Coal Company 1998 Annual Hydrology Report West Elk Mine <br />• Seeps and Springs Impacts <br />Hydrographs for all of the springs for the periods of record aze presented in Appendix E, in the <br />same order that the spring stations are listed in Table 2. The hydrographs provide a convenient <br />means for assessing flow variation over time. Seasonal trends can be established and pre-mining <br />(baseline) and post-mining data can be compared. <br />Based on Appendix D, most of the WY98 spring flows were generally consistent with data from <br />past years. There aze a couple of springs that appeaz to have been potentially affected by mining <br />activities. The dry period of May through September may account for a few springs (G-12, G- <br />la, and G-42) not yielding measwable flow that historically have flowed. At present, these <br />springs, which are all located in Sylvester Gulch, appear to reflect the lack of precipitation, not <br />mining impacts. <br />Spring G-24 is located in Sylvester Gulch and was "destroyed" during construction of the <br />facilities. The surface expression of the spring is no longer evident in its historic location; <br />however, the source of the water was probably not affected. The spring has probably relocated <br />downgradient or dispersed. The peak flows for this spring typically ranged from 20 to 60 gpm. <br />MCC owns all of the water rights in Sylvester Gulch; no other water users were adversely <br />impacted. If the spring re-emerges, MCC will continue monitoring. <br />Spring Water Quality Data <br />In addition to regulazly monitoring the flows of 40 springs, MCC collects extensive water quality <br />data on the springs. The chemistry of spring flows may change if mining has impacted the <br />spring. The tables in Appendix E have been prepared to summarize the available data for all <br />measwed parameters. These tables provide minimum, average, and maximum concentrations <br />under both baseline, when available, and WY98 conditions. <br />Inspection of the data reveals that, in general, water quality concentrations during WY98 were <br />comparable to those in previous yeazs. The available data indicated that there were no deviations <br />during WY98 from baseline conditions. Available water quality data indicate that impacts to <br />spring water quality due to mining have not occurred as predicted. <br />Stock Ponds <br />Map 3 shows the locations of the stock ponds and U.S. Forest Service water resowces relative to <br />the B-Seam longwall panels. As the map indicates, few of these resowces were within the <br />influence of mining in WY98. As expected, no impacts were noted due to mining. <br /> <br />31-0 1. 00 age rig t Water ngineers <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.