My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL39731
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL39731
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:59:06 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 10:20:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981035
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
7/9/1987
Doc Name
Proposed Decision & Findings of Compliance for RN1
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.
/
28
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
The mine, as discussed in Section VI - Surface Water Hydrology and Section VIII <br />- Alluvial Valley Floors of this document, does not impact the adjudicated use <br />of the Hay Gulch Ditch. The sediment ponds located at the site do not impound <br />more than 2 acre-feet of water. Therefore, as no impacts to existing water <br />rights in the area are anticipated, no replacement plan is required. <br />National King Coal has committed to effecting repairs to the overlying <br />Huntington Irrigation Ditch should the mining operation impact this structure. <br />The owner of the irrigation ditch has agreed to this mitigation plan. <br />The operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. <br />VIII: Alluvial Palley Floors - Rute 2.06.8; 2.07.6(2)(k) and 4.24 <br />There are currently three coal mining operations located within Hay Gulch: the <br />King Coal Mine (permitted, active), the Blue Flame Coal Mine (permit issuance <br />pending, inactive); and the La Plata No. 1 Mine (permit issuance pending; <br />inactive); All three mines are considered in the alluvial valley floor <br />discussion: <br />Hay Gulch was determined to be an Alluvial Valley Floor (AVF) (see National <br />King Coal, Inc „ Findings of Compliance, February 4, 1982): No information to <br />dispute this finding has been subsequently submitted to the Division; <br />therefore; the alluvial valley floor determination remains: <br />Field observations by Division staff and information contained in permit <br />applications indicate that small areas of unconsolidated stream-laid materials <br />are present in adjacent drainages: However, these areas are not extensive <br />enough to meet the size criteria of AVF's: <br />It has been determined that Hay Gulch meets the criteria for an AVF based upon <br />three findings (i) The valley contains unconsolidated stream-laid deposits; <br />(2) The valley contains sufficient water to support agricultural activities as <br />evidenced by (a) the historical use of flood irrigation in the area; and (b) <br />the demonstrated capability of the area to be flood irrigated; and (3) The <br />valley has demonstrated subirrigation: <br />It should be noted that Hay Gulch does not presently contain a stream. It is <br />thought that this is due to agricultural practices in the gulch which divert <br />naturally occurring flow into the Hay Gulch Irrigation Ditch: Furthermore, it <br />is thought that the original channel has been removed by local agricultural <br />activities: <br />The Hay Gulch Irrigatiott Ditch; which parallels La Plata County Road 120; is <br />used for flood irrigation purposes in the vicinity of present mining activity: <br />It has been demonstrated that the naturally occurring water table of the AVF <br />varies from above ground surface to about three feet below the surface (Section <br />V - Ground Water Hydrology of this document): This demonstrates that <br />sufficient water is available for subirrigation purposes: Furthermore; the <br />identified land use on the AVF is primarily pastureland with occasional hay <br />production: The essential hydrologic functions that supply water to the AVF <br />are both flood irrigation and subirrigation as described above; The operator <br />has not presented any information regarding the significance of the AVF to the <br />individual farming units; therefore; the AVF was considered significant for <br />purposes of this findings document: <br />-11- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.