My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1981-08-20_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981038
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981038
>
1981-08-20_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981038
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/5/2020 8:56:39 AM
Creation date
8/8/2012 9:04:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981038
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
8/20/1981
Doc Name
Proposed Decision & Findings
From
DRMS
To
Colorado Westmoreland, Inc
Permit Index Doc Type
Findings
Email Name
BFB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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
-29- <br /> —� Factors which limit the inflows of groundwater into the existing mines are: <br /> 1) The low permeability of the coals and their associated roof and floor <br /> materials; 2) The steep topography; and 3) The very thick overburden above the <br /> mines. The permeability of the coals and associated strata have been previously <br /> addressed. The steep topography limits recharge to potential aquifers and to <br /> fault and fracture systems. The potential sandstone aquifers are cliff formers <br /> in the basin and, as such, have limited surface area exposed for recharge <br /> along slopes. The steep topography and steep stream gradients also favor <br /> runoff over infiltration, thereby reducing the duration of exposure and the <br /> amount of water exposed to sandstones and fractures within the channels of the <br /> ephemeral tributaries of the North Fork of the Gunnison River. Higher inflow <br /> rates, however, have been measured and mapped in the Somerset mine which has <br /> mine workings below 2 perennial tributaries, Bear Creek and Hubbard Creek. This <br /> is due to the lower stream gradient and greater quantity of water flowing in <br /> these larger drainage basins. The thick overburden along with the lenticular <br /> and interlayered nature of strata within the Mesa Verde Formation limits the <br /> vertical movement of water down from the surface to the coal seams, and also <br /> limits the lateral movement of water along the regional dip of the stratum. <br /> This produces small, localized groundwater flow systems within the overburden <br /> strata which is controlled more by topography than regional geologic structure. <br /> This is evident in the many ephemeral springs located 'throughout the North <br /> Fork drainage basin. <br /> The factor which is the most significant source of mine inflows is the faulting <br /> and fracturing within the Mesa Verde Formation. The largest inflows reported <br /> into the Somerset mine, Hawk's Nest mine and Orchard Valley mine have been <br /> ( - through fractures in the roof and from faults. Dewaterina of fractures and <br /> faults within the mine may deplete spring and stream flows. The mines within <br /> the North Fork drainage basin, therefore, have been required to do extensive <br /> monitoring of springs, streams and inflows during mining. <br /> To date, neither catastrophic mine inflows nor catastrophic depletions of surface <br /> flows have occured due to coal mine subsidence within the North Fork drainage <br /> basin. Both the U.S. Steel Somerset mine and the Western Slope Hawk's Nest <br /> mine have undermined tributaries to the North Fork and have not yet observed <br /> marked increases in post-mining inflows due to subsidence beneath these tri- <br /> butaries. However, with time, the possibility of subsidence effecting stream <br /> flow still exists. <br /> Subsidence could reduce stream flow by directly diverting surface flow and <br /> alluvial groundwater into the bedrock groundwater system. This effect is <br /> undesirable both because of the hydrologic effects and the mine operation problems <br /> it could produce. The applicant has not proposed a subsidence protection plan <br /> for either Stevens Gulch or East Roatcap Creek to protect stream flow. How- <br /> ever, protection plans for these streams are not being required as a part of <br /> this permit review. The Division prefers that site-specific monitoring data <br /> concerning subsidence and it's hydrologic effects be taken into account in the <br /> design of any protection plan. <br /> WHEN THE OPERATOR SUBMITS A PERMIT APPLICATION TO UNDERMINE STEVENS <br /> GULCH AND/OR EAST ROATCAP CREEK, THE SUBSIDENCE PROTECTION PLAN DEVEL- <br /> OPED FOR THESE AREAS SHOULD BE,BASED UPON MONITORING INFORMATION COL- <br /> LECTED DURING THE EARLIER PHASES OF MINING. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.