My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL30475
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL30475
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:48:00 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 6:44:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
5/4/2007
Doc Name
Proposed Decision & Findings of Compliance for PR2
Permit Index Doc Type
Findings
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.
/
69
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
A particular concern raised by the Division during the PR-2 review, was the potential that high <br />salinity spoil water discharged from proposed South Taylor pit backfill areas into the West Fork <br />of Good Spring Creek, would increase salinity levels on the main stem of Good Spring Creek, <br />potentially causing material damage by significantly reducing forage production on irrigated <br />fields on the Good Spring Creek alluvial valley floor. The potential for material damage was <br />assessed by the Division, based on salt loading projections incorporating anticipated spoil <br />discharge quantity, worst case projected spoil discharge salinity, and historic low flow discharge <br />and salinity of Good Spring Creek, in selected upper and lower segments (see Section <br />2.05.6(3)(b)(iii) of permit Volume 12, and particularly Potential Surface Water Quality Impacts <br />discussion on page R2-118). The projected worst case salinity for Good Spring Creek <br />downstream of the West Fork confluence and upstream of Streeter Drainage confluence is 1192 <br />mg/1 TDS (1.86 mmhos/cm conductivity). Projected worst case for lower Good Spring Creek, <br />downstream of Streeter Drainage confluence is 1261 mg/1 TDS (1.97 mmhos/cm conductivity). <br />The Division inserted the projected worst case salinity values from the referenced permit section <br />for upper and lower reaches of Good Spring Creek into a material damage assessment formula <br />listed in the Division's January 1988 material damage guideline document (A Description of the <br />Material Damage Assessment Process Pertaining To Alluvial Valley Floors, Surface Water, <br />Ground Water And Subsidence At Coal Mines). Based on available data for moderately <br />sensitive species representative of the most sensitive forage species grown on the alluvial valley <br />floor fields, projected yield declines range from 2.l % to 2.4% for upper Good Spring Creek, and <br />from 1.1% to 1.3% for lower Good Spring Creek. The guideline document "suspect level" for <br />initial determination of potential material damage is a 3% decline in productivity for an alluvial <br />valley floor agricultural parcel. Based on this analysis, the Division has determined that the <br />proposed operation will not result in material damage to the Good Spring Creek alluvial valley <br />floor. Monitoring of spoil springs, alluvial aquifers on the West Fork and main stem of Good <br />Spring Creek, and surface water in the West Fork and main stem will be conducted to verify that <br />worst case salt loading projections are not exceeded. <br />Details of Colowyo's water monitoring plan are found in Section B, Item III of this document and <br />in Section 4.05 of the Permit. <br />D. Specific Findings Required by Rule 4.24 <br />1. The Division has determined that an alluvial valley floor exists within the affected or adjacent <br />area. Therefore, the following findings are in order for the alluvial valley floors located in Wilson <br />Creek and Goodspring Creek. Lower Elkhorn Creek is located outside the permit area and will <br />not be affected by mining at Colowyo. A short segment of Jubb Creek passes through the <br />northwest corner of the expanded permit area, but Jubb Creek is not within the affected area, is <br />not hydrologically connected to the affected area, and will thus not be affected by mining at <br />Colowyo. <br />Proposed Decision and Findings of Compliance 4 May 2007 <br />Permit Revision 02 Page 66 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.