My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-03-31_PERMIT FILE - C1980007A (34)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2008-03-31_PERMIT FILE - C1980007A (34)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2019 9:15:15 AM
Creation date
9/19/2008 11:15:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007A
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
3/31/2008
Doc Name
2.04-51 Thru 2.04-113
Section_Exhibit Name
2.04.7 Hydrology Description
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.
/
63
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 />• Additional baseline data were obtained in Horse Gulch, the west gulch located east of Horse Gulch, <br />the east gulch located east of Horse Gulch and in the Deep Creek drainage above and below the <br />coal lease boundary. Instantaneous flows, along with monthly peak flows, are measured with a <br />crest stage gage. After baseline data were collected, West Gulch was eliminated from the <br />monitoring program because the drainage was dry. <br />A second Sylvester Gulch gaging location, Upper Sylvester Gulch, was added to the monitoring <br />program in 1996. This gage location, shown on Map 34, was chosen because it is upstream of the <br />first southeast longwall panel to be mined. Flows will be measured with a permanently installed <br />nine-inch wide throat, Parshall Flume. <br />Baseline data have been obtained for Box Canyon prior to longwall mining beneath the- drainage. <br />Periodic monitoring has shown the drainage to be dry most of the time; however, monitoring will <br />continue in accordance with the monitoring plan presented in Exhibit 71. <br />In addition to providing baseline data, a portion of the Minnesota Creek gaging station network <br />will be relied on to quantify stream depletions to Minnesota Creek (if any) from MCC's mining <br />operations to provide the necessary augmentation water in accordance with the adjudicated plan <br />(Exhibit 52). The extent of depletion, if any, will be quantified by correlating the streamflows of <br />Minnesota Creek at the lower gaging station, approximately six miles upstream from its <br />confluence with the North Fork, with sub-basins that could potentially be affected (Dry Fork and <br />Lick Creek). A complete description of the streamflow correlation procedures is provided in the <br />Application for Approval of Plan for Augmentation Concerning the Application of Water Rights <br />of MCC in Gunnison and Delta Counties (WWE 1986) (Exhibit 52) and Engineering report, <br />Water Augmentation Plan for MCC in Minnesota Creek Basin near Paonia (WWE 1985). <br />As baseline hydrology data have been obtained in accordance with CDRMS regulations, some of <br />the Minnesota Creek gaging stations have been decommissioned until the surnner before mining <br />impacts are expected. Because MCC needs certain data to develop the streamflow correlations <br />described in the augmentation plan, the following stations remain operational: n ;innesota Creek <br />Lower (USGS) gaging station, Minnesota Creek Upper (USFS) flume, Lower Dry Fork flume, <br />Lick Creek flume and the Upper Dry Fork flume. The Upper Dry Fork flume was relocated in <br />November 1981, to a downstream location with a more stable channel to more accurately <br />measure flows. Upper Dry Fork flume was relocated again in 2005 because a beaver pond flooded the <br />original site. An additional site was placed at the flume crossing on Deep Creek in 2007. <br />MCC has closed the Horse Creek flume, the South Prong flume and the East Fork upper station. <br />Should mining advance to the point where these basins might be impacted, MCC :'Fill install new <br />gaging stations, or reinstall the old stations, at least one monitoring seas-in L« ore an- potential <br />exists for streams to be impacted. None of these drainages is within the ir.?ulence of mining in the <br />permit area. In the event that conditions are such that the gage cannot be reinstalled at the same <br />location, the site for the new gage will be reviewed with the CDRMS. <br />Due to the storage in Minnesota Reservoir, the Dry Fork flows at the lower gage do not correlate <br />. well with those measured at the upper gage. Consequently, MCC attempted to locate an <br />appropriate gaging location immediately upstream of the reservoir. However, the channel is not <br />2.04-86 Revised Arovember 2004 PRI Q .Va7-ch 2006; Rev. April 2006 PR10; Rev. Afay 2006 PRIG; Sep. 2007 PR12. Feb. 2008 PR12
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.