Laserfiche WebLink
6.0 An Analysis of Impacts to Potential AVF' s _ <br />• } <br /> The Trapper Mine operations are not located in any potential AVFs. <br /> Therefore, problems associated with mining through AVFs such as those <br /> discussed by Hardaway (1977) will not be encountered. The potential AVFs <br /> in the area adjacent to the mine and the potential to impact them is dis- <br />cussed below. <br />6.1 Williams Fork River <br />The Williams Fork River can be dismissed from potential impacts Erom <br />ground or surface water as a result of [he Trapper Mine. As previously <br />stated, the mine lies on the dip slope of [he Big Bottom Syncline so that <br />surface and groundwater flow are both northward. The Williams Fork River <br />•~ is south of [he mine and no[ hydrologically connected [o the mine plan <br />area. Thus no further consideration of impacts to its alluvial aquifer <br />need Co be investigated. <br />6.2 Yampa River <br />The area of the Big Bottom contains an alluvial aquifer. Agricultural <br />activities also exist in [he area. This creates the potential for it [o <br />be classified as an AVF. Hardaway et al has classified the Big Bottom as <br />an AVF. ICF., Inc, a Washington D.C. consulting firm analyzed the impact <br />of the AVF provision on coal production. This study was undertaken <br />pursuant to HR 13950 which subsequently became the surface mining Control <br />~l and Reclamation Act. Their analysis of the AVF identified by Hardaway <br />-44- <br />