REV102288 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

... 8. Page 2.04-66. Explain why a permanent gauge is not planned for the Box Canyon Basin. 9. Page 2,04-7 ],Table 8. The various constructed stock ponds and '.'Forest Service Watef Resources" are an important resource for wildlife and livestock in the permit revision area because of the lack of live water sources. Any subsidence induced damage to these "structures" will need to be mitigated by the company. As part of the stock pond monitoring program, the GMUG recommends that photographs be taken and replicated on an annual basis during active mining and subsidence. 10. Page 2.04- l08 and 109. Are the locations of the faults (or the fault traces) shown on a map? This information should be included. 12. Pages 2.05-1 l0, 131 and 133. Although presented as being unlikely, any surface cracking that forms and diverts runoff, ephemeral flow etc., could have a translated effect to the local ecosystem. Should cracking occur and surface cracks persist, MCC must commit to mitigating the damage as described in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Box Canyon Lease completed in 1995 in order to preserve the ecosystem. 13. Page 2.05-152, Item 11. Although on the scale of the North Fork watershed as a whole water losses would not have a noticeable affect, it needs to be recognized that on the subbasin and local ecosystem scale, water losses could be damaging and would require mitigation. 14. Page 2.05-158, Item 2. Need to include Box Canyon. 15. 2.05-159, Discussion of Deep Creek. Map 52 shows the B-Seam mine plan which indicates that a 3,000-foot segment Deep Creek (a perennial stream) will be undermined and subsequently subsided by longwall panels. The GMUG is very concerned about the potential effecu of subsidence on this perennial drainage. The permit revision refers to potential channel widening of up to 6 feet, with a potential sediment yield increase of up to 5%. Channel widening could have expanded effects on riparian vegetation and the associated ecosystems. Some of these effects may be unacceptable to the GMUG. The existing permit documentation does not adequately describe the specific conditions (i.e. overburden) of this drainage or describe the expanded potential effects of subsiding this drainage. MCC must also commit to a monitoring and mitigation plan as described in the stipulations included in the EA. 16. 2.05-164, Items 1 and 2. These 2 studies are the only formal studies dealing with subsidence of perennial streams in western coalfields (these studies were performed in Utah). In Item 1, it references that the azea is on Forest Service land. In fact, the area is located on private lands (inholdings) within the Manti-La Sal National Forest boundary. Item 2, this study has been completed and it is suggested that final results be used. It must be noted that these two azeas had different stream channel morphologies and mining conditions. Miller Creek had very minimal alluvial development and flowed across exposed bedrock, whereas the stream in the second study (Burnout Creek) flowed in awell-developed alluvial system. It is apparent from these studies that site specific conditions beyond thickness of overburden must be considered when assessing potential impacts to perennial drainages.