My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-02-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1994082
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1994082
>
2018-02-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1994082
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2018 7:03:57 AM
Creation date
2/9/2018 11:09:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1994082
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
2/9/2018
Doc Name Note
For (SL6)
Doc Name
Proposed Decision and Findings of Compliance
From
DRMS
To
Seneca Property LLC
Permit Index Doc Type
Findings
Email Name
JDM
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.
/
17
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
Permit Number C-1994-082 Page 15 of 17 <br />operation is 150 tons. The field in Section 18 provides 13% of the total productivity. The estimated <br />worst-case loss in productivity is 2.8% as shown on Table 17-17a of the PAP. Crop reductions were <br />based on the formula presented in the Material Damage Assessment Process Pertaining to Alluvial <br />Valley Floors, Surface Water, Ground Water and Subsidence at Coal Mines (January, 1988). As <br />referenced in this document, less than a 3% reduction is considered insignificant. <br /> <br />Sage Creek "Flood Irrigated Alfalfa Fields" <br /> <br />The Yoast Mine permit application package documents the presence of approximately 86 acres of <br />flood irrigated alfalfa hay along Sage Creek in Section 30. Five to ten acres of alfalfa were flood <br />irrigated in this field from 1988-1992. The field was irrigated by means of pipes spreading water <br />from a small reservoir near Sage Creek. The reservoir does not currently impound water because the <br />dam is breached. <br /> <br />The field was converted to dryland wheat. Water availability for irrigation was marginal; however, <br />future restoration of the dam and flood irrigation of the field is a remote possibility. The creek <br />typically dries up in July or August. <br /> <br />It is unlikely a reservoir in Sage Creek will be reconstructed in the future. Two previous attempts to <br />construct dams have failed and the increased engineering specifications and economics involved in <br />rebuilding the dam would be significant. Without the dam, water availability is insufficient for flood <br />irrigation. The Division agrees with SPL’s assessment of water availability in Sage Creek and finds <br />that the area has no potential for successful irrigation. <br /> <br />The Division finds the field in Section 30 meets the regulatory definition of an alluvial valley floor <br />because it may be sub-irrigated. However, only a minor portion of the alluvial valley floor is sub- <br />irrigated, according to Exhibit 16-3 of the PAP. Furthermore, the field is seven miles downstream <br />from the nearest discharge point for potential spoil springs. Therefore, the potential for material <br />damage to the quality of water supplying ground water to the alluvial valley floor is insignificant. <br /> <br />The Division finds that activities conducted by SPL have not interrupted, discontinued or precluded <br />farming on the alluvial valley floors in the Sage Creek Reservoir Site and the AVF identified in <br />Section 30 that are irrigated or naturally sub-irrigated. The field in Section 13 is undeveloped <br />rangeland, which is not significant to farming, and the field in Section 18 provides negligible support <br />for the farm’s agricultural production. <br /> <br />The SL-6 Phase III BRB has not materially damaged the quantity or quality of water in the surface or <br />ground water system described above, due to the potential AVF lands being of such small acreage as <br />to be of negligible impact on the farm’s agricultural production. <br /> <br />The conducted activities have complied with the requirement of the Act and the regulations with <br />respect to alluvial valley floors. <br /> <br />Findings on Protection of Hydrologic Balance <br /> <br />According to Rule 3.03.2(2), the Division must conduct an inspection and an evaluation to determine
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.