My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL36138
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL36138
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:49 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:37:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Name
Federal Lease COC-54558 Decision Document
Permit Index Doc Type
Other Permits
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.
/
94
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
In addition, on the fee surface within the application area there <br />are five adjudicated water rights. Within a mile of the tract <br />boundary there are seven adjudicated water rights (see Map 4). <br />• The rights are for springs, reservoirs, ponds, wells., and <br />ditches. <br />Ground Water <br />Tha potential for ground water occurrence, on the lease tract. <br />exiete in both the Mesaverde Formation and unconsolidated <br />quaternary surface deposits of colluvium/alluvium. Within the <br />Mesaverde Formation both the Rollins Sandstone and various coal <br />members, depending on secondary porosity, can transmit ground <br />water. Aowever, with the geologic dip of the Mesaverde Formation <br />being roughly 3.5 degrees to the north-northeast, ground water <br />recharge would be limited to the aquifer along the southern <br />flanks of Jumbo Mountain or from the 3-4 faults identified <br />crossing the lease tract. <br />All but two of the springs, reservoirs, ponds and ditches <br />mentioned in the Surface Water section are topographically higher <br />than the coal seam proposed for development and other potential <br />hydrogeologic units in the Mesaverde Formation. The springs are <br />most likely associated with surface quaternary deposits and/or <br />local fault systems. <br />There are no special floodplains, municipal watersheds or <br />National Resources Waters located on the proposed lease tract. <br />• J. Socioeconomic <br />The proposed lease tract is located in both Delta and Gunnison <br />Counties and most of the workers live in Delta County and the <br />mine buys locally as much as possible. These local expenditures <br />by the mine affect mainly Delta County. Delta County, thus, is <br />the focus of the economic impact area analysis. <br />Between 1980 and 1990, Delta County experienced changes in its <br />population. The 1980 population was 21,225 and the 1985 <br />population was 23,466. The 1990 census puts the population at <br />20,980, a decrease of one percent over the 1980 population count. <br />See Table 1 for the population of towns in Delta County. The <br />Colorado Division of Local Government has made population <br />projections for the period 1990-2015. Delta County is projected <br />to have a population of 22,280 by 2015 or a 6.2 percent increase <br />over 1990. <br />Employment for Delta County increased from 7,600 in 1989 to 8,124 <br />in 1990 or a 7 percent increase according to data from the Bureau <br />of Economic Analysis. Mining employment was 345 in 1980 and <br />dropped to 98 by 1989, a 72 percent decrease. In 1989 mining <br />employment represented one percent of the county~s employment. <br />Mining earnings were 10.8 million in 1980 and decreased to 4.6 <br />• million by 1989. Mining earnings represented 13 percent of non <br />farm earnings in 1980 and 4 percent of non farm earnings in 1989. <br />Page 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.