APPCOR13396

• Permit No: C1982056
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 1/6/1983
• Doc Name: FOIDEL CREEK UNDERGROUND MINE AVF DETERMINATION
• From: MLR
• To: SANDY EMRICH
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

n
u
STATE OF CO~ORA00 RiC Vi ARD D. LOMM. Govrmm Ott ^1~~~'~°
999
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
D. Monte Pascoe, Executive Director
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. [phone]
David C. Shelton
Director
DATE: January 6, 1983
T0: Sandy Emrich
FROM: Jerry Zimpfer ~~
RE: Foidel Creek Underground Mine, AVF Determination
In thinking about yesterday's meeting with Getty Coal I realized that I did
not fully respond to George Young's question concerning what additional
information could be provided to change the preliminary Foidel Creek alluvial
valley floor determination. The following discussion should provide the
company with some guidance, and should be forwarded to the applicant.
Information included in the application indicates that the area in question
(Foidel Creek) is capable of flood irrigation because sufficient water is
physically available, but that flood irrigation would not be economically
feasible. This area should not be given a negative determination on the
basis of economic feasibility. Cost-benefit analyses are too dependent
upon the particular scenario analyzed, and too easily adjusted to provide
the desired results. There are, however, other physical considerations,
other than the quantity of water available, that could be considered.
The water available for flood irrigation is not suitable for flood
irrigation because of its quality. Water of a similar quality is
not used regionally for flood irrigation.
The soils in the area under consideration are not suitable for flood
irrigation. Those soil types are not flood irrigated in the region.
The areas under consideration are topographically or geographically
different from the areas in the region where pond/ditch flood
irrigation is practiced. That difference makes the areas under
consideration unsuitable for this type of flood irrigation. (For
example, the area under consideration is significantly smaller in
acreage than the areas where such flood irrigation systems are used.
The areas where such systems are used are all at a lower (or higher)
elevation and that the difference in elevation makes these areas
not useful agriculturally. The areas flood irrigated by such systems
are located within 5 foot elevation of the stream channel, and if the
same limitation is applied to the area in question, the acreage
remaining is too small to be agriculturally useful.)
~ ~