Laserfiche WebLink
• Rule 2.05.6(61 Subsidence Survev, Monitorine and Control Plan <br />The responses to questions 115 and 116 are adequate. The application is in compliance with Rule <br />2.05.6(6). <br />Rules 2.06.1, 2.06.2. 2.06.3, 2.06.4, 2.06.5. 2.06.6 <br />117. The Division disagrees that the proposed surface mining operation does not qualify as <br />mountaintop removal mining. Please discuss why the proposed operation does not meet <br />the definition of "mountaintop removal" as described in Section 2.06.3(2) of the Board's <br />Regulations. <br />Rule 2.06.8 Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations on Areas, or adiacent to <br />Areas, IncludinE Alluvial Valley Floors <br />Under this section, all responses were found adequate except as listed below. <br />121. The applicant's response is adequate; however, the language in the response regarding the <br />consultation with Mr. Bayes, and the applicant's proposed construction of a feeder ditch <br />and commitment to maintain the culvert which passes the Chacon Ditch below the access <br />road, should be placed into the permit application. <br />• 122. According to Exhibit 18, an alluvial valley floor exists both within and adjacent to the <br />permit area. This is the irrigated stream laid deposit at the mouth of Lorencito Canyon. <br />A portion of that AVF that lies within the permit area will have surface mining operations <br />conducted upon it; namely, the mine access road (and related traffic) and the railroad <br />spur. Please provide, in accordance with Sections 2.06.8(4)(a)(vi) and 4.24 of the Board's <br />Regulations, plans for an environmental monitoring system that will measure the mine's <br />compliance with 4.24. <br />A review of Exhibit 18 finds that additional information is needed for the Division to <br />determine whether the stream laid deposits within Lorencito Canyon have any "inherent <br />productive potential to support agricultural activities". Please provide the minimum size <br />of stream laid deposits being farmed in the region that use flood irrigation. Please <br />provide additional information demonstrating that the water from the perennial reaches <br />of Lorencito Canyon is insufficient to support flood irrigation of a portion of the <br />Lorencito Canyon deposits the size of the smallest flood-irrigated parcel in the region. <br />The statement that the "site has never developed for flood irrigation" (page 16 of Exhibit <br />18) is unfortunately not enough for the Division to base a finding that Lorencito stream <br />laid deposits don't have the potential for flood irrigation (Section 2.06.8(3)(c) of the <br />Board's Regulations). <br />Should the Lorencito deposits be found by the Division to be an AVF, based on their <br />potential to be flood-irrigated and farmed, an environmental monitoring system, in <br />• accordance with Sections 2.06.8(4)(a)(vi) and 4.24, will need to be developed for this <br />AVF as well. <br />