PERMFILE58854 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\~ Pittsburg and Midway, Fist~eek Mine File -2- • December 9, 1982 operation. The Division pointed out that, although the AVF might be eli- gible, no written findings had been make for these areas and we did not know if they would be "grandfathered". Written findings will soon be made for the nearby Mine No. 3 and for the Foidel Creek Mine, and part of all of the Fish Creek AVF may be "grandfathered" as part of those findings. The Division would then have to determine to what extent the "grandfathering" applied to other mining operations. The company indicated that they might have difficulty obtaining agricultural information for the farm and alluvial valley floor in question. The farming operation is owned by a rival coal company which may be unwilling to cooperate. The Division suggested that if the information cannot be obtained from the farm's operator that the company gather what additional information it can from field reconnaissance and form the use of aerial photography. The Division would attempt to make its significance determination on the basis of that information. (The company was reminded, however, that if the information provided was insufficient, the alluvial valley floor would be assumed to be significant, and that the applicant is responsible for providing sufficient information for our findings.) The cons u7tant outlined the subirrigation information available at the present time, and asked if the Division felt additional studies were necessary. We indicated that information now available indicated that subirrgation was indeed occuring. Whether additional studies were necessary, was up to the company. If it was critical to determine if subirrigation was occurring throughout the growing season or the exact location of where subirrigation occurred, additional studies might be appropriate. If the company would be satisfied with a finding that the AVF was subirrigated, additional studies would be unnecessary. The Division pointed out that there has been some discussion in the past as to how the AVF performance standard applies to underground mines. The question is whether the performance standard applies to all aspects of an underground mine or only to the surface disturbances associated with the operation. We suggested that the company may want to request that the Division set policy on this. (Subsequent conversations with Ed Bischoff indicate that this may be unnecessary. He feels that the Division has applied the performance standard to all aspects of underground mining in our previous reviews, e.g. Empire Energy.) The Division indicated that alluvial valley floors were not our only concern with regard to undermining the Fish Creek Stream/alluvial aquifer system. The company must also minimize disturbance to the hydrologic balance in general, and must prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. The company was advised that the Colorado Department of Health has adopted receiving stream standards for the Trout Creek drainage system. Jim Pendletion pointed out that, to date, no operation has been permitted for full extraction beneath a perennial stream/alluvial aquifer system.