Laserfiche WebLink
West Elk Mine <br />Impacts to wetlands are regulated under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Section 404, <br />and the accompanying regulations (including, in particular, 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 />land in question must meet specific requirements pertaining to vegetation, soils and hydrology. As <br />of March 1995, the criteria for these three parameters were being closely reviewed by the U.S. <br />Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and a technical <br />committee of the National Science Foundation. <br />As noted above, if a parry intends to dredge and/or fill in a regulatory wetland, a 404 permit must be <br />acquired in advance of the activity. Note that the regulatory "trigger" is dredging and/or filling. No <br />such activities are proposed in the Apache Rocks, Box Canyon, South of Divide or Dry Fork permit <br />revision areas. <br />To ascertain whether potential wetlands impacts caused by mining-induced subsidence would be <br />regulated under Section 404, MCC representatives met with staff from the U.S. Army Corps of <br />Engineers (USACE), Grand Junction office in September 1994. In this meeting, USACE staff <br />indicated that, at West Elk Mine, wetlands impacts as a consequence of subsidence would not be <br />regulated. In addition, due to the many reasons presented above regarding the general lack of <br />impacts to streams, spring/seeps and groundwater, it is unlikely that the wetlands in the South of <br />Divide permit revision area will be significantly affected by the mining. The wetlands in question <br />derive their water from surface drainages and spring/seeps. WWE's calculations indicate that the <br />maximum potential spring and streamflow loss in the current permit and Box Canyon permit <br />revision areas is less than 3 acre-feet per year. A loss of this magnitude, especially when distributed <br />over the full permit revision area, is of no consequence relative to the wetlands. If the total annual <br />surface water and spring "losses" of 3 acre-feet were to reemerge downgradient, slope stability is <br />not likely to change significantly. The introduction of 3 acre-feet of additional groundwater <br />discharge is smaller than the natural, year-to-year fluctuations in groundwater discharges. This <br />finding, coupled with the small wetlands acreage in the Apache Rocks and Box Canyon permit <br />areas. leads to the conclusion that the probable hydrologic consequences from the perspective of <br />wetlands are not significant. <br />Water Rights <br />Background <br />This section discusses the potential effects on ?,ested water rights that may be caused by MCC's <br />longwall iniivng operation, and the associated subsidence in the permit area. The location of the <br />South of Divide permit revision areas are shown on Map 1 A. Related impacts include inflows from <br />Lau!" c and storing water in underground sumps. All of these topics are addressed herein. <br />The ?,,ater rights analysis has been prepare U-1 v} iv `ti,vE x:*h over 40 years of experience in this <br />suL, ject. WWE recoininends that readers review the next major section of this report Mine Water <br />System for background to facilitate an understanding of water management at the mine, and <br />associated water rights implications. <br />2.05-208 Revised June 2005 PRIG; Rev. A9arch 2006: Rev. ,4pri12006 PRIO: Allay 2006 PRIO.Sep. 2007 PRI2; Feb 2008 PR12