Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application Documents & Correspondence• LANDSCAPING PLAN COAL RIDGE NO. 1 NEW CASTLE ENERGY CORPORATION • March 1, 1986 • • Landscape Plan Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine New Castle Energy Corporation Introduction The landscape plan presented below has been prepared in accordance with the provisions contained in Garfield County Resolution Number 85-171. This resolution conditionally approved a Special Use Permit for New Castle Energy Corporation's Coal Ridge No. 1 coal mine. Stipulated in the Special Use Permit under item 4 (A) is a landscape guideline which specifies the conditions relating to landscaping needs. The objective of the landscaping plant is to mitigate visual impact produced by site disturbance and construction of mine surface facilities. Realization of this objective will be achieved by plantings which will screen and blend the disturbed areas into the surrounding plant communities. The color scheme for surface facilities approved by the Board of County Commissioners is also designed to blend with the background plant communities. Landscape Guideline No. 1 Notwithstanding that construction may occur in the Fall of 1985, • the mine developers shall submit the initial landscaping plan on or before March 1, 1986. In the event of any construction activity on the site, which activity will result in the disturbance of an area exceeding 250 square feet, the mine developers shall submit a landscaping plan for approval by the Board of County Commissioners within thirty (30) days of the start of construction. Copies of the proposed landscaping plan also shall be furnished to the President of the Riverbend Homeowners Association and a representative of the owners of private lands located north of the Colorado River and within one (1) mile of the mine site at the time the submittal to the County. NCEC Response: Mine development construction began on October 15, 1985. Surface development continued until stopped by adverse weather conditions. Earth work and grading is approximately 80% complete. Final earth moving and grading will be completed in the spring of 1986 as weather conditions allow. The landscape plan will cover all of the initial construction activity and surface disturbance. Any additional disturbance at a future date involving more than 250 square feet of area will be covered by another landscape plan prepared for approval by the • Board of County Commissioners within thirty (30) days of the • start of construction. Copies of the proposed landscaping plans may be made available to concerned landowners living within one (1) mile of the mine portals that may be impacted by the construction activities through the County Commissioner's office. Landscape Guideline No. 2 The landscaping plan shall be drawn to a minimum scale of one inch (1") for each fifty feet (50'); and indicate the square footage of each planting area; tabulate the square footage of all landscaped areas and percentage of the disturbed site devoted to landscaping; identify within the planting area the type of plants; list the botanical and common names of all plants with the quantity of each and their respective container size; and clearly portray the irrigation system to be utilized. NCEC Response: Attached in Exhibit No. 1 is a map at a scale of 1" = 50 feet showing the areas that will be reseeded and location of the various tree species which will be planted. Table 1 presented in Exhibit No. B indicates the square footage of the disturbed site devoted to landscaping. Table No. 2 presented in Exhibit C contains a list of the species 111 used along with the quantity and size. It also shows the seed mixture to be used to revegetate all disturbed sites along with a list of shrubs which will be transplanted onto all seeded areas. The irrigation system for those areas below the Vulcan Ditch is presented on the Landscape Map in Exhibit A. A water truck will be used for irrigating trees above the Vulcan Ditch. If in the event that a dry year inhibits the establishment of seeded species, a temporary irrigation system will be used to apply water from the Vulcan Ditch. Landscaping Guideline No.3 Landscaping shall consist of a combination of berming, trees, shrubs and live ground covers with careful consideration given to eventual size and spread, and sufficient to mitigate visual impact produced by site disturbance and the construction of mine facilities, susceptibility to disease and pests, durability and adaptability to existing soil and climatic conditions. Trees shall an average caliper of two and one-half inches (2 1/2") measured one foot (1') from ground level. No tree shall be less than two inches (2") in caliper. In addition, conifers shall be a minimum of six feet (6') in height. Each unused area resulting from the design or layout of parking spaces or structures shall • be used for planting purposes if over 50 square feet. All • planted areas shall contain an irrigation system, except that all areas with natural grasses shall contain an irrigation system as needed. MEC Response: Landscaping has been designed to create live ground covers and trees to blend into the surrounding landscape and existing plant communities. It takes into account the eventual size and spread of the species used. Plant species native to the site are proposed in order to maximize the adaptability of the plants to the existing soil and climatic conditions. Trees will all be of an average caliper of 2-1/2" except for conifer species which will be at least 6 feet tall. No tree shall be less than 2 inch caliper. All areas not utilized in the mine operations will be used for planting purposes. This means that all areas other than road surfaces, portal decks, and operations pads and parking lots will be landscaped. The planting scheme consists of revegetating all disturbed areas not used in the operation of the mine with the approved seed mixture. A mulch will be applied to aid in stabilizing the site until the plants become estblished. Woody plants will be transplanted into the reseeded areas at a random density of 1,050 shrubs per acre or a shrub averaging 6.4 feet • apart. Shrub species and the quantities to be planted are presented in Exhibit C. Sites at the upper elevations will be planted with predominately serviceberry, mountain mahogany, and snowberry with the remaining species being planted at low densities. Sagebrush will dominate the lower elevation sites. Shrub species coincide with those naturally occurring and will reduce the visual impact of distrubed sites by blending into the surrounding plant communities. Shrub species such as caragana, potentilla, and honeysuckle will also be planted in association with tree plantings. Irrigation of these sites will occur as needed depending on prevailing climatic conditions. Landscape Guideline No. 4 Slope stabilization, erosion protection measures and braodcast seeding of grasses will occur in the Spring of 1986, and approximately one-half (1/2) of tree and shrub planting will occur in the Spring of 1987. Landscape and irrigation systems as required for the disturbed areas shall be completely installed and in operation on or before June 1, 1987. • • NCEC Response: Two areas will be broadcast seeded and mulched in the Spring of 1986. These are the areas above the portals. No shrubs will be planted on these sites because of MSHA regulation restricting flamable materials within 100 feet of a mine portal. All other sites will be seeded and mulched in the Fall of 1986. Shrubs will be planted in the Spring of 1987. Pinyon pine and juniper trees will also be planted in the Spring of 1987 which will favor their establishment and survival. All other trees with access to ditch water will be planted in the Spring and early Summer of 1986. This includes cottonless cottonwood and golden willow trees to be planted along the west side of the Riverbend Subdivision in accordance with an agreement with the Riverbend Homeowners Association. Tree planting locations accessable to Vulcan Ditch water will be planted a soon as the irrigation system is installed. Landscape Guideline No. 5 Landscaping and irrigation systems shall be maintained in good condition in accordance with the plans approved by the Board. All planted areas shall be watered sufficiently to promote growth of all trees, shrubs and ground cover plants. Planting areas shall be maintained in a weed free condition. All planting shall be periodically pruned, trimmed, edged and fertilized in 411 accordance with generally accepted horticultural practices. All trees, shrubs and plants which have been planted and which, due to accident, damage, disease, and other causes, fail to show healthy growth, shall be replaced. Replacement plants shall conform to all standards that govern the original planting installation. NCEC Response: All planted areas shall be watered sufficiently to promote the establishment, survival and growth of all trees, shrubs and ground cover. Weed eradication will be under advisement from the Argicultural Extension Office. Plantings will be maintained through watering, fertilizing, pruning and trimming as needed according to acceptable practices. In the event that damage from disease or other causes result in poor health or death, the damaged plants will be replaced according to the standards established under Resolution 85-171, 4(A). • • EXHIBIT A • EXHIBIT B Disturbed and Landscaped Areas • • • Description Table 1. Disturbed and Landscaped Areas Topsoil Stockpiles Roads and Pads Cut and Fill TOTAL Acres Square Feet Percent of Total 4.32 188,179 16.5 11.94 520,106 45.5 10.00 435,600 38.0 26.26 1,143,885 100% NOTE: Total area revegetated and landscaped equals 14.32 acres or 623,779 square feet. This amounts to 54.4% of the total area disturbed by surface facilities. • • • EXHIBIT C Plant Species Used • • • Table 2. Plant Species to be Used in Revegetation & Landscaping Tree Species Ouantity Container Size Pinyon Pine (Pinus edulis) 15 B&B Rock Mtn. Juniper (Juniperus Scopulorum) 12 B&B Cottonwood (Populus robusta) 74 B&B Golden Willow (Silix vitalina) 74 B&B Shrub Species Mountain Big Sagebrush (Artemisia vaseyana) 175 4500 Bare root & tublings Antelope Bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) 500 True Mtn. Mahogany • (Cercocarpus montanus) 1500 Wild Rose (Rosa woodsii) 500 Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) 1500 Snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus) 500 Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) 500 Caragana (Caragana arborescens) 500 Potentilla (Potentilla fruticosa) 500 • n n 11 n n n 11 n n n n n n 11 n n 411 Seed Mixture Grasses Pounds Pls PLS/ft.2 Western Wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii) Beardless Wheatgrass (A. inerme) 1.0 2.6 1.0 2.9 Streambank Wheatgrass (A. riparium) 1.0 3.7 Slender Wheatgrass (A. trachycaulum) 1.0 3.1 Intermediate Wheatgrass (A. intermedum) 0.25 0.5 Desert Wheatgrass (A. desertorum) 0.25 1.2 Thick Spike Wheatgrass (A. dasystachyum) 1.0 3.5 Big Bluegrass (Poa ampla) 0.25 5.0 Green Needlegrass (stipa viridula) 1.0 3.8 Smooth Bromegrass (Bromus inermis) 0.25 0.8 411 Indian Ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) 1.0 3.7 Tall Rescue (Festuca arundinacea) 0.50 2.4 Subtotal 8.50 33.2 Forbs Rocky Mountain Penstemon (Penstemon strictus) 0.13 5.0 Palmer Penstemon (P. palmari) 0.25 3.5 Lewis Flax (Linum lewisii) 1.0 6.7 Small Burnet (sanguisorba minor) 2.0 1.0 Cicer Milkvetch (Astragalus cicer) 0.50 1.5 Western Yarrow (Achillea millefolium) 0.13 11.5 Ladak Alfalfa (<edocagp satova) 0.13 0.7 Scarlet Globemallow 411 (Sphaeralcea coccinea) 0.13 0.7 Subtotal 4.27 30.6 411 Pounds PLS PLS/ft. 2 • • Shrubs Mountain Big Sagebrush (Artemisia vaseyana) 0.50 2.5 Antelope Bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) 5.00 0.5 Winterfat (ceratoides lanata) 2.00 2.0 Fourwing Saltbrush (Atriplex canescens) 2.00 1.3 Woods Rose (rosa woodsii) 1.00 0.5 Subtotal 10.50 6.8 TOTAL 23.27 70.6** * Number of seeds per square foot taken from: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1982. Plant Materials For Use On Surface Mined Lands In Arid and Semiarid Regions. SCS TP -157. EPA 600/7-79-134 ** 0.49 seeds per square inch Richard D. Lamm Governor • DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES David H. Getches, Executive Director MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION DAVID C. SHELTON, Director February 8, 1985 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 306 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine File No. C-84-065 Dear Mr. Bean: Enclosed is a copy of the Division's Proposed Decision for the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. The public comment period will run for 30 days from the date of first publication in the Glenwood Post. The Division has remitted the notice to the Post and they will publish at the earliest possible date. If you have any questions, please contact the Division or me. Sincerely, 111-1‘4-<1'1' Candace M. Thompson Hydrologist CMT/wjh Enclosure(s) cc: Hamilton R. Duncan E. Peter Matthies 7663F _�1..� S' (-.1 i M. FEB 1 11985 ii1L GARFIELD C3. PLANNER 423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 IN REPLY REFER TO: 0 ' 17) United States Department of the Interior JAN 21 ;985 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 2920 Glenwood Springs Resource Area P.O. sox loos COUyri Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Mr. Larry Schmeuser Garfield County Commissioners P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 January 18, 1985 Dear Mr. Schmeuser: The Bureau of Land Management is considering the issuance of a private sector land lease and various rights-of-way to Storm King Mines of Englewood, Colorado. The lease and rights-of-way would be utilized to support coal mining operations in association with its proposed mine located approximately three miles east of New Castle, Colorado. The Glenwood Springs Bureau of Land Management Office has recently completed a Draft Environmental Assessment as a prerequisite to the decision on the lease and rights-of-way applications. Any comments you have on the Draft Environmental Assessment or other aspects of Storm King Mines proposal would be appreciated. Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment must be received within 30 days. Copies of the draft are available at the Garfield County Public Library, 402 West Main, New Castle, Colorado; Bureau of Land Management, 50629 Highways 6 & 24, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; and Bureau of Land Management, 764 Horizon Drive, Grand Junction, Colorado. Should you have any questions, please contact David Atkins at 945-2341. Sincerely, Clukteor J James R. Owings Area Manager • • r Storm King Mines, Inc. Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine C-84-065 Proposed Decision and Findings of Compliance Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division David C. Shelton, Director January, 1985 • Introduction This document is the approval package prepared by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division for the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine underground mining operation located in Garfield County. The document contains the proposed decision to approve the permit application; a summary which includes a description of the review process for the permit application; a description of the environment affected by the mining operation and a description of the mining and reclamation plan; and the written findings of compliance that the Division is required to make pursuant to the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Act of 1979. Detailed information about the review process can be found in the Act and the Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining. All rules referenced in this document are contained within those regulations. Detailed information about the proposed mining and reclamation operations can be found in the permit application and the public record maintained by the Division (File NO. C-84-065) at 1313 Sherman Street, Room 423, Denver, Colorado, and at the Garfield County Courthouse in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. • a Table of Contents Page Introduction i Proposed Decision 1 List of Stipulations 1 Summary of the Review Process, The Environmental Description and The Mining and Reclamation Plan 5 Findings of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division for the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine 7 • • Proposed Decision Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division proposes to approve, in -part, with stipulations, an application to conduct coal mining operations submitted by Storm King Mines, Inc. for the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. This approval is limited to those "Phase A" lands within the boundaries designated as "Permit Area, Affected Area, and Disturbed Area" on Figure 4.2-2 in Volume V of the permit application. The Permit Term is limited to three years. This approval decision is based on a finding that the proposed operation will comply with all requirements of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act, C.R.S. 1973, as amended, 34-33-101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the act. The permit application and the stipulations will become a binding part of the permit upon approval. The stipulations for the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine are as follows: Stipulation No. 1 THE RECLAMATION STANDARD FOR NEWLY DISTURBED AREAS WILL APPLY TO THOSE AREAS OF OLD MINING DISTURBANCE WHICH ARE TO BE REDISTURBED AND RECLAIMED, UNLESS THE PERMITTEE SUBMITS TO THE DIVISION AN APPROVABLE POST -MINING LAND USE FOR THESE AREAS. Stipulation No. 2 WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE PERMITTEE MUST SUBMIT TO THE DIVISION NEW DESIGNS ALLOWING FOR A GREATER SLOPE ON CHANNEL A TO INSURE FLOW THROUGH THE CHANNEL LENGTH. THE PERMITTEE MUST COMMIT TO INSPECTION OF THE DITCH AFTER RUNOFF EVENTS TO LOCATE AREAS OF EXCESSIVE EROSION. THE PERMITTEE MUST ALSO COMMIT TO APPROPRIATE EROSION PREVENTION IF NEEDED. THESE DESIGNS MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR DIVISION APPROVAL BEFORE DISTURBING ANY AREA AT THE PROPOSED SURFACE FACILITIES SITE. • • 2 Stipulation No. 3 THE DIVISION REQUIRES THAT STORM KING MINE SUBMIT AN ANNUAL HYDROLOGIC REPORT BY JANUARY 15 OF EACH YEAR INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING: A BEDROCK WELLS AND ALLUVIAL/COLLUVIAL WELLS SK -3.75 SK -3H (ZONES 1, 2, AND 3) OW -4L OW -8 OW -7 OW -3L BEFORE AND AFTER ROCK TUNNEL DEVELOPMENT THESE WELLS ARE TO BE SAMPLED QUARTERLY FOR THE A) FIELD PARAMETERS LISTED BELOW AND B) ANALYZED ONCE YEARLY FOR THE CHEMICAL PARAMETERS LISTED BELOW. THE SAMPLING PERIOD FOR ALL WELLS SHOULD BE WITHIN AS SHORT A TIME PERIOD AS POSSIBLE. DURING ROCK TUNNEL DEVELOPMENT AND UNTIL STABILIZATION THESE WELLS ARE TO BE SAMPLED A) MONTHLY FOR THE FIELD PARAMETERS LISTED BELOW and B) ANALYZED QUARTERLY FOR THE CHEMICAL PARAMETERS LISTED BELOW: Field Parameters Chemical Parameters WATER LEVEL pH CONDUCTIVITY WATER TEMPERATURE Fl Cl Ca Mg Na SAR SO4 ALKALINITY TDS CONDUCTIVITY (LAB) pH (LAB) NO3 REPORTING - HYDROGRAPHS OF WATER LEVELS SHOULD BE COMPILED FOR EACH waL. • . 3 B. OPERATIONAL MONITORING A POINT OF SAMPLING THE SLURRY WATER UTILIZED IN THE OPERATION WILL BE AGREED UPON COOPERATIVELY BETWEEN THE OPERATOR AND THE DIVISION. THIS POINT WILL BE SAMPLED QUARTERLY FOR THE FIELD PARAMETERS AND TWICE YEARLY FOR CHEMICAL PARAMETERS DESCRIBED ABOVE. A DESCRIPTION AND MEASUREMENT OF INFLOWS (IF POSSIBLE) WILL BE COMPILED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT. INFLOW MONITORING IS REQUIRED DURING PORTAL DEVELOPMENT AND ON-GOING MINING. CONDUCTIVITY MEASUREMENTS OF INFLOWS MUST BE MADE WHEN POSSIBLE. A REPORT MUST BE COMPILED OF NPDES EFFLUENT REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. A REPORT MUST BE COMPILED OF ANNUAL WATER BALANCE INCLUDING ESTIMATED CONSUMPTIVE USE IN ACRE-FEET AND A RECORD OF FLOW TO THE ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOOR DURING IRRIGATION SEASON, AND FLOW IN THE VULCAN DITCH. A BRIEF SUMMARY MUST BE MADE BY THE OPERATOR OF AREAS WHERE MAJOR WATER LOSSES MOST LIKELY OCCURED. C. SURFACE WATER THE SURFACE WATER MONITORING PROGRAM WILL CONSIST OF QUARTERLY MONITORING OF FIELD PARAMETERS OF THE COLORADO RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF THE PRESENT SAMPLING SITE CR -2. Stipulation No. 4 THE PERMITTEE MUST AT ALL TIMES SUPPLY ADEQUATE WATER FOR FLOOD IRRIGATION OF THE ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOOR BELOW THE VULCAN DITCH. IF, AT ANY TIME DURING THE IRRIGATION SEASON (MAY, JUNE, JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER), THE FLOW IN THE VULCAN DITCH DROPS BELOW 1.6 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, THE PERMITTEE MUST RECEIVE DIVISION APPROVAL, BASED ON A DEMONSTRATION THAT THE WATER IS NOT NECESSARY FOR IRRIGATION OF THE AVF, BEFORE USING THE WATER IN THE MINING OPERATION. Stipulation No. 5 THE PERMITTEE SHALL REVISE THE PERMIT WITHIN 120 DAYS OF APPROVAL TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. IN THE CASE OF REQUIRED CHANGES, BELOW, THE PERMITTEE MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE DIVISION PRIOR TO THE STIPULATION BEING SATISFIED. REVEGETATION PLAN 1. THE DIVISION IS SETTING A WOODY PLANT DENSITY STANDARD OF 1000 LIVE STEMS/ACRE FOR THE REVEGETATION SUCCESS STANDARD FOR THE SAGEBRUSH COMMUNITY. • • - 4 2. THE DIVISION IS SETTING THE FOLLOWING SPECIES DIVERSITY REVEGETATION SUCCESS STANDARD: SPECIES DIVERSITY WILL BE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE ON THE REVEGETATED SAGEBRUSH COMMUNITY AREAS IF THE PERMITTEE HAS ESTABLISHED TWO SPECIES OF COOL -SEASON BUNCH GRASSES, TWO SPECIES OF COOL -SEASON SOD GRASSES, TWO SPECIES OF LEGUMINOUS FORBS, AND TWO SPECIES OF WOODY PLANTS; EACH SPECIES OF THE ABOVE BEING REPRESENTED BY NOT LESS THAN 3% RELATIVE COVER OR MORE THAN 40% RELATIVE COVER ON THE REVEGETATED SURFACE. Stipulation No. 6 THE DIVISION REQUIRES THAT STORM KING MINING COMPLETE AN APPROVABLE "DETAILED ENGINEERING PLAN" FOR THE PERMANENT PHASE B WASTE SLURRY EMBANKMENT AND SUBMIT THE PLAN TO THE DIVISION ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS PERMIT. THE DETAILED PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS A PERMIT REVISION. FURTHER, IF 12,000 TONS OF WASTE IS PRODUCED PRIOR TO OBTAINING APPROVAL OF THE PERMANENT WASTE EMBANKMENT, MINING OPERATIONS SHALL CEASE UNTIL AN APPROVAL IS OBTAINED FOR PERMANENT DISPOSAL OF ADDITIONAL WASTE. Stipulation No. 7 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACCESS ROAD, THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR EMBANKMENT STABILITY, FOR DIVISION APPROVAL. THE ANALYSIS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH RULE 4.03.1(3)(d)(vii). THE DESIGN STANDARDS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS A REVISION TO THE PERMIT APPLICATION. Stipulation No. 8 THE DIVISION REQUIRES THE PERMITTEE , IN THE EVENT THAT SINKHOLE SUBSIDENCE COLLAPSE WERE DETERMINED, BY THE DIVISION, TO CONSTITUTE A POTENTIAL HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, TO IMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE SEALING AND BACKFILLING OF SINKHOLE COLLAPSE FEATURES. Stipulation No. 9 THE DIVISION REQUIRES THE PERMITTEE , IN THE EVENT THAT ANY SLOPE INSTABILITY IS DETERMINED BY THE DIVISION TO HAVE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE AFFECTED AREA, TO SUBMIT TO THE DIVISION FOR REVIEW AN ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES AND RESULTANT HAZARDS OF ANY SUCH UNSTABLE SLOPE AREA. USING THIS ANALYSIS, THE DIVISION SHALL DECIDE WHETHER A HAZARD IS REPRESENTED BY ANY SPECIFIC SLOPE MOVEMENT EVENT AND WHETHER A SLOPE STABILIZATION PROGRAM SHOULD BE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED. • • 5 Stipulation No. 10 IF THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES AND THE PERMITTEE HAVE NOT AGREED TO A SUBSIDENCE MONITORING PROGRAM ACCEPTABLE TO THE DIVISION PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE ROCK TUNNEL, THE DIVISION WILL REQUIRE THE PERMITTEE TO AMEND ITS CURRENT SUBSIDENCE MONITORING PROGRAM. FURTHER, NO MINING SHALL OCCUR WITHIN THE COAL SEAM UNTIL THE PERMITTEE HAS OBTAINED APPROVAL FROM THE DIVISION FOR THE AMENDED SUBSIDENCE MONITORING PROGRAM. Stipulation No. 11 THE DIVISION DIRECTS THE PERMITTEE TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT A FORMAT FOR THE REQUIRED SEMI-ANNUAL SUBSIDENCE MONITORING REPORTS. THIS PROPOSED REPORT FORMAT SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR DIVISION REVIEW WITHIN SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT. FURTHER, THE PERMITTEE SHALL HAVE OBTAINED APPROVAL OF THE SUBSIDENCE REPORT FORMAT PRIOR TO ANY MINING WITHIN THE COAL SEAM. Stipulation No. 12 THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION OF THE NOTICE AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 2.07.6 (2)(d)(iv) FOR GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD 335 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION COMMENCEMENT. • • - 6 Summary of the Review Process The Environmental Description and The Mining and Reclamation Plan Storm King Mines, Inc. has applied for a permit to conduct underground mining operations at the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. The proposed mine is located in Garfield County approximately 7 miles west of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The mine plan area encompasses over 5,900 acres of which 627 acres are included in this permit term. Of this area, 81 acres are proposed to be disturbed. Review Process Storm King Mines, Inc. submitted a permit application for the Coal Ridge No. 1 mine on March 12, 1984 pursuant to Section 34-33-109 of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act. Since that time, the application has been under review by the Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Division (Division). The permit application was deemed complete on April 3, 1984. The application was reviewed following completeness and an adequacy letter was sent out on June 4, 1984. Resolution of these deficiencies was required in order for the Division to make determinations of compliance with the Act. Subsequently, the Division and the applicant corresponded several times and the final responses were incorporated into the permit application on December 14, 1984. As a result, the review process has been adequately completed and the Division proposes to approve, in -part, the Coal Ridge No. 1 permit application with stipulations. Environmental Description The Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine will extract coal from the lower portion of the Williams Fork formation. The mine will be located along the Grand Hogback Monocline. The Grand Hogback trends east-southeast in the vicinity of the proposed mine with the rock strata dipping to the south-southwest at an average of 50 degrees. Ground water occurs in both bedrock and alluvial deposits in the vicinity of the proposed mining operation. The potential of the Mesa Verde strata to produce within the area of the proposed mine is greatly limited by the extreme dip of the rock strata which results in prohibitive drilling depths in a short distance. • • 7 There are thick alluvial bodies present along the Colorado River in the vicinity of the proposed mine. This alluvium is often used as a major source of agricultural water for the region. The proposed Coal Ridge No. 1 mine is located within the Colorado River Basin. The proposed mine is directly adjacent to the Colorado River, with the surface facilities located on alluvial/colluvial fan terraces approximately 150 feet above the Colorado River. Only small ephemeral drainages are located within the three year permit area. The vegetation within the vicinity of the mine is characterized as pinyon -juniper, sagebrush, mountain shrub, and irrigated cropland. The area is used for limited grazing and wildlife habitat. Wildlife that inhabit the area include large and small game animals and numerous birds and small mammals. Soils in the area are characterized as moderately deep to deep well -drained loams with a dark colored surface layer. Variability in the characteristics of the soils in the area is primarily due to slope and topography. Deeper soils are located in the valley bottoms and at the foot of slopes while the shallower soils occupy the steeper side slopes. The mine elevation is approximately 5,800 feet. The climate is semi -arid with an annual precipitation of 16 inches. Average monthly precipitation varies little throughout the year. Summers are hot, marked by very low humidity and cool nights. Winters are cold, generally snow -free, but with frequent blizzard conditions. Mining and Reclamation Plan The Wheeler seam is planned to be mined by hydraulic methods at the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. Entryways will be driven with a roadheader. Following completion of the entries, the coal will be mined using a high pressure water jet (monitor). The coal will then be transported by a water flume to the preparation facility. At the preparation facility, the coal is dewatered and stored for shipment to customers. Initially, Storm King Mines will drive two rock tunnels to access the Wheeler Coal Seam. Permanent reclamation will begin following closure of the mine. The reclamation plan for the disturbance contained in the permit term will include backstowing the coal processing waste into the twin rock tunnels, removing the structures, regrading the mine facilities pad to approximate original contour, topsoiling the disturbed area, and revegetating with a mix of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. The sediment control structures will be the last features to be reclaimed at the mine. They will not be removed until revegetation success standards have been rnet on the reclaimed area. The sediment control structures will be regraded, topsoiled, and seeded following the same procedures as for the surface facilities area. • • - 8 Findings of The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division for Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine Explanation of Findings Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2) of the regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining, the Mined Land Reclamation Division or the Board must make a number of written findings prior to the issuance of a permit. These findings are based on information made available to the Division that demonstrates that the applicant will be able to operate in compliance with the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act. This findings document is organized according to the major disciplines reviewed during the permitting process. The written findings which must be made by the Division are addressed under the appropriate discipline subtitle. For example, findings concerning the protection of endangered or threatened fish and wildlife species will be found under the subtitle for Fish and Wildlife. Also any specific approvals required to be made by the Division pursuant to Rule 4 and thus requiring a written finding pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(m) are discussed under the appropriate discipline subtitle. I. Legal, Financial, and Compliance Information - Rule 2.03 Legal, financial, and compliance information reviewed by the Division can be found in Section 2 of Volume I of the permit application. Copies of the leases and warranty deed applying to the proposed operation, which are kept in a confidential file, were also reviewed. Based on that information, the Division makes the following findings. Based on the information provided by the applicant, the Division finds, pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(f), that Storm King Mines, Inc. is in compliance with Rule 2.03.6(2). The coal leases and warranty deed are the documents of conveyance that expressly grant the right to extract coal. Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(g) and on the basis of evidence submitted by the applicant, the Division finds that Storm King Mines, Inc. does not control and has not controlled mining operations with a demonstrated pattern of willful violations of the Act of such nature, duration, and with such resulting irreparable damage to the environment, as to indicate an intent not to comply with the provisions of the Act. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this Section. • ! 9 II. Land Use - Rules 2.04.3, 2.05.5, and 4.16 The discussion of pre- and post -mining land use in the permit and adjacent areas can be found in Volume I, pages 3-1 through 3-11 and 4-78 of the permit application. Current land uses in and adjacent to the proposed permit area include grazing, wildlife habitat, cropland, residential, developed water resources and undeveloped land. A previous land use of mining is also evident at the site. Currently the largest single land use at the site is undeveloped land. The proposed permit area is not within 300 feet of occupied dwellings. There is some surface disturbance at the site as a result of past mining activities. The last mine within the permit area ceased operations in 1962. If any of these old areas of surface disturbance are re -disturbed by Storm King Mines, Inc., they must be reclaimed to meet the standards of Rule 4.15.10. The applicant proposes to return the disturbed areas to the previous land uses. The applicant has not described to what land use old mining disturbance areas are to be reclaimed. Therefore, the following stipulation is required: Stipulation No. 1 THE RECLAMATION STANDARD FOR NEWLY DISTURBED AREAS WILL APPLY TO THOSE AREAS OF OLD MINING DISTURBANCE WHICH ARE TO BE REDISTURBED AND RECLAIMED, UNLESS THE PERMITTEE SUBMITS TO THE DIVISION AN APPROVABLE POST -MINING LAND USE FOR THESE AREAS. Other post -mining land uses which have been proposed are consistent and compatible with adjacent land use. The Division has determined that based on information and the reclamation plan proposed by the applicant and with the acceptance of stipulations contained in this section and Section XI - Vegetation Information, the achievement of these land uses is feasible. Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(i), the Division hereby approves the post -mining land uses of the proposed operation. It is determined that these uses will meet the requirements of Rule 4.16. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. III. Cultural and Historic Resources - Rules 2.04.4 and 2.05.6(4) The applicant has submitted information showing that no cultural or historic resources exist within the permit area on page 3-12 of Volume I of the application. Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(e), the Division finds that the proposed mining operation will not adversely affect any publicly owned park or place listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. • • - 10 - IV. Geology - Rules 2.04.5 and 2.04.6 Descriptions of the geology within the permit and adjacent areas are located in Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 5.1 and 5.2; appendices 3.3-1, 3.3-2, 3.3-2, 3.3-3a, 3.3-3b, 4.2-1, and 4.5-1; and Figures 3.3-2, 3.3-3, 3.3-4, 3.3-5, 3.3-6, 3.3-7, 3.3-8, 3.3-9, and 3.3-10. A detailed description of the geology of the permit and adjacent areas is contained in the Description of the Environment section of this findings document. A description of the geology of the general area is contained in the Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Study and Probable Hydrologic Consequences of Mining section of this findings document. The applicant has supplied sufficient geologic information for the purpose of this review. The applicant is, therefore, in compliance with Rules 2.04.5 and 2.04.6. V. Hydrologic Balance: Surface Water - Rules 2.04.5, 2.04.7, 2.05.3, 2.05.4, and 4.05 Baseline information Information on surface water can be found in the permit application in Sections 3.3.7, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.5.3, and 5.1 of Volume I. The information contained in these sections is sufficient for the Division to predict worst case scenarios for mining related impacts on surface water conditions of the permit, adjacent, and general areas of the mine. Diversions, Temporary The temporary diversion, Channel A, which drains the undisturbed area above the mine portals has been designed with a slope of .002, or 1.7 inches of drop in 100 linear feet. It seems unlikely that such accuracy can be maintained during construction and it is likely that ponding will occur along the ditch, which will result in excessive siltation. Therefore, the following stipulation is required. Stipulation No. 2 WITHIN THRLE MONTHS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE PERMITTEE MUST SUBMIT TO THE DIVISION NEW DESIGNS ALLOWING FOR A GREATER SLOPE ON CHANNEL A TO INSURE FLOW THROUGH THE CHANNEL LENGTH. THE PERMITTEE MUST COMMIT TO INSPECTION OF THE DITCH AFTER RUNOFF EVENTS TO LOCATE AREAS OF EXCESSIVE EROSION. THE PERMITTEE MUST ALSO COMMIT TO APPROPRIATE EROSION PREVENTION IF NEEDED. THESE DESIGN MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR DIVISION APPROVAL BEFORE DISTURBING OF ANY AREA AT THE PROPOSED SURFACE FACILITIES SITE. • • Sedimentation Ponds All runoff from the disturbed area will be routed through one sediment pond. The sediment pond is designed to contain the runoff from a 10 -year 24-hour runoff event. The sediment pond (Pond A) is designed to contain one year of accumulated sediment. The applicant has committed to semi-annual sediment cleanout, therefore the design should be adequate. Sediment Pond A is designed with an emergency spillway capable of passing the peak flow from a 2.5 -year 24-hour precipitation event. The sediment pond is not equipped with a principal spillway. Instead, the applicant proposes to install a pumping system to dewater the sediment pond and use the water in the hydraulic mining system. The pumping system is capable of dewatering the pond within 48 hours of the beginning of a 10 -year 24-hour storm event. VI. Water Rights and Replacement - Rules 2.04.7(3) and 4.05.15 The Storm King Mine is proposed as a hydraulic mining operation. As such, the operation requires large quantities of water for operations such as cutting of the coal. The operation has facilities designed to process and recirculate the majority of water required for the operation. The water circulation is designed as a closed -system with the major water loss occurring through evaporation, adhesion to coal and refuse, and by seepage underground during mining. The application projects that water loss through these processes will require a make-up of approximately 600 acre-feet of water annually to the system. The Storm King Mine has acquired water rights more than sufficient to augment their annual projected water consumption. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. VII. idrologic Balance: Ground Water - Rules 2.04.5, 2.04.7, 2.05.3(4), 2.05.6(3), and 4.05 The descriptions of ground water within the permit application are located in Sections 3.3.4, 5.1, and 5.2; appendices 3.3-3a, 3.3-4, 3.3-5, 3.3-7, 3.3-9, and 3.3-10; and Figures 3.3-11, 3.3-12, 3.3-17, and 5.2-2. A detailed description of the ground water in the permit and adjacent areas is contained in the Description of the Environment section of this findings document. A Description of the ground water in the general area is contained in the Cumulative Hydrologic Impacts Study and Probable Hydrologic Consequences of Mining section of this findings document. The descriptions of ruining impacts on ground water are located in sections 4.2.3.3, 4.2.3.4, 5.2.4.2.2, 4.2.4.2.4, 4.2.4.2.6, 4.5.3, and 5.2 of the application. The discussions on ground water contained in the Cumulative Hydrologic Impacts Study and Probable Hydrologic Consequences of Mining section of this findings document present an analysis of these impacts. • - 12 - The applicant has supplied sufficient ground water information to make the findings required by the Act and the regulations. The applicant is therefore in compliance with Rule 2.04.5, 2.04.7, 2.05.3(4), 2.05.6(3), and 4.05. Hydrologic Monitoring In Sections VIII and IX of this document, the Division assesses the potential impact of the Coal Ridge No. 1 mine on the hydrologic balance of the area. This assessment is based o certain assumptions of ground water and surface water characteristics of the area and on assumptions of how the operations plan will interact with these waters. In order to verify these assumptions, a monitoring and reporting program is needed. Storm King Mine's consultant has submitted in a memo of January 15, 1985, a proposal for on-going monitoring. In some aspects this plan is inadequate. Therefore, the following stipulation is required. Stipulation No. 3 THE DIVISION REQUIRES THAT STORM KING MINE SUBMIT AN ANNUAL HYDROLOGIC REPORT BY JANUARY 15 OF EACH YEAR INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING: A. BEDROCK WELLS AND ALLUVIAL/COLLUVIAL WELLS SK -3.75 SK -3H (ZONES 1, 2, AND 3) OW -4L OW -8 OW -7 OW -3L BEFORE AND AFTER ROCK TUNNEL DEVELOPMENT THESE WELLS ARE TO BE SAMPLED QUARTERLY FOR THE A) FIELD PARAMETERS LISTED BELOW AND B) ANALYZED ONCE YEARLY FOR THE CHEMICAL PARAMETERS LISTED BELOW. THE SAMPLING PERIOD FOR ALL WELLS SHOULD BE WITHIN AS SHORT A TIME PERIOD AS POSSIBLE. • - 13 - DURING ROCK TUNNEL DEVELOPMENT AND UNTIL STABILIZATION THESE WELLS ARE TO BE SAMPLED A) MONTHLY FOR THE FIELD PARAMETERS LISTED BELOW and B) ANALYZED QUARTERLY FOR THE CHEMICAL PARAMETERS LISTED BELOW: Field Parameters WATER LEVEL pH CONDUCTIVITY WATER TEMPERATURE Chemical Parameters F1 C1 Ca Mg Na SAR SO4 ALKALINITY TDS CONDUCTIVITY (LAB) pH (LAB) NO3 REPORTING - HYDROGRAPHS OF WATER LEVELS SHOULD BE COMPILED FOR EACH WELL. B. OPERATIONAL_ MONITORING A POINT OF SAMPLING THE SLURRY WATER UTILIZED IN THE OPERATION WILL BE AGREED UPON COOPERATIVELY BETWEEN THE OPERATOR AND THE DIVISION. THIS POINT WILL BE SAMPLED QUARTERLY FOR THE FIELD PARAMETERS AND TWICE YEARLY FOR CHEMICAL PARAMETERS DESCRIBED ABOVE. A DESCRIPTION AND MEASUREMENT OF INFLOWS (IF POSSIBLE) WILL BE COMPILED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT. INFLOW MONITORING IS REQUIRED DURING PORTAL DEVELOPMENT AND ON-GOING MINING. CONDUCTIVITY MEASUREMENTS OF INFLOWS MUST BE MADE WHEN POSSIBLE. A REPORT MUST BE COMPILED OF NPDES EFFLUENT REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. A REPORT MUST BE COMPILED OF ANNUAL WATER BALANCE INCLUDING ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION USE IN ACRE-FEET AND A RECORD OF FLOW TO THE ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOOR DURING IRRIGATION SEASON, AND FLOW IN THE VULCAN DITCH. A BRIEF SUMMARY MUST BE MADE BY THE OPERATOR OF AREAS WHERE MAJOR WATER LOSSES MOST LIKELY OCCURED. • • - 14- C. 4 - C. SURFACE WATER THE SURFACE WATER MONITORING PROGRAM WILL CONSIST OF QUARTERLY MONITORING OF FIELD PARAMETERS OF THE COLORADO RIVER DOWNSTREAM OF THE PRESENT SAMPLING SITE CR -2. VIII. PROBABLE HYDROLOGIC CONSEQUENCES OF MINING AT THE COAL RIDGE #1 MINE The Coal Ridge #1 Mine is located along the flank of the Grand Hogback Monocline, adjacent to the Colorado River in Garfield County, Colorado. Glenwood Springs, the county seat, which owns a portion of the coal to be mined, is seven miles east of the project, and the town of New Castle is located approximately 1.5 miles north and west. The topography of the mine area ranges from 5600 feet in elevation at the Colorado River up to 7585 feet at the crest of the Grand Hogback. The general geology and topography of the mine site is shown in Figure 1. Bedrock outcrops at the mine site include the Upper Cretaceous -aged Mancos Shale and the Mesa Verde Formation. The stratigraphy specific to the mine site is shown in Figure 2. The Mancos Shale is a highly erodable formation consisting of two thick marine shale members separated by a limestone member, and is at least 4000 feet. thick in the mine area. The Mancos Shale conformably underlies and intertongues with the lowermost formation of the Mesa Verde Group. The Mesa Verde Group is composed of the lowermost Iles Formation, Williams Fork Formation, and an overlying 2000 feet of undifferentiated deltaic -type deposits. The Iles and Williams Fork Formations are typified by interbedded shales, siltstones, sandstones and coal. The Rollins Sandstone is generally considered as the uppermost unit within the Iles formation, forming the contact with the Williams Fork Formation. The Rollins is typified by fine to medium -grained sandstone that weathers to light buff. Bedding is commonly massive. The Wheeler Coal of the Williams Fork Formation will be mined at Coal Ridge No. 1. This coal overlies the Rollins Sandstone. In portions of the area, the Wheeler seam is split into a lower and main member. The lower Wheeler is described as generally being 15 feet thick and underlies the main Wheeler by 30 feet. The Wheeler seam is more persistent and in the mine area is described as being 15.5 to 22.5 feet thick. These coals are overlain by approximately 400 feet of coal -bearing shale. Two mappable sandstone units occur within the Williams Fork Formation, approximately 400 and 600 feet, respectively, above the Wheeler Coals. These sandstone units are the Middle Sandstone and the Upper Sandstone, both of which are similar to the Rollins Sandstone. These units are in turn overlain by 2000 feet of undifferentiated Mesa Verde Group. This member is typical of upper deltaic formations consisting of channel sandstones, siltstone, shale and lenticular thin coal beds. • UNDIF RENTIATED -2000' Porno Sh. M•mber TONGUE Of MANCOS Sh. Williams Fork lies Formation MO 17C05 5h. 0. 0 a) CD W oc V • STRATA CR*/NSCS INC. Srroligroph#c data from SK -3.75 Vertical Sco% 1"= 250' 'Figure 2. (From Figure 3.3-5 of Permit Application) GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN, STORM KING PERMIT AREA I certify that this information is correct to the best of my knowledge, and wos prepared by�. i(l 0,49, who is a qualified professionol eologist. • y t2 c �o y � WO✓ 7 14h vJ J O 0 c a Co. • \ P47<:4°aN \ vose ‘k. \ 4. \ \ \ j'' a� \ N \ W c \ , _ , , t , \ ' , \ \ C - '') . , , (zi z . \ u \ 1 31 • •r 0 a) Generalized Cress-Section in the Vicinity of the Coal LL • • - 15 - The Grand Hogback is the major structural feature within the area, forming much of the eastern edge of the Piceance Creek Basin. The Grand Hogback is a monoclinal feature with beds dipping steeply to the south and southwest. Within the mine area, the dip at the surface is approximately 600. The outcrop of the resistant sandstone units of the Mesa Verde Formation form a topographic high along the Grand Hogback. The major movement of ground water within the area is controlled by the steep dip, with movement southward toward the central Piceance Basin. Cross communication of ground water between the sandstones and the coal units is limited by the thick inter -bedded shales present throughout the section. The deep basinal system inhibits ground water development in much of the area because of the associated high drilling and pumping costs. Four bedrock zones which are either water -bearing or potentially water -bearing have been identified in the permit area. These units are the Rollins Sandstone, the Wheeler Coal, and the Upper and Middle Sandstones. Several wells were drilled through these zones in the mine area by the applicant to evaluate the ground water resources. Ground water was not identified in the Middle and Upper Sandstones in the permit area. These sandstones are composed of medium -grained, well -indurated silica and are only occasionally calcareous. These sandstones appear to be unsaturated throughout the permit area. The Wheeler Coal was found to be saturated in only the deepest portions of the permit area, below an elevation of 6080 feet. The groundwater yield in the Wheeler Seam was estimated to be less than a few gpm, with a transrnissivity estimated at less than 100 gpd/ft. The Rollins Sandstone was described as being between 80 and 150 feet thick in the permit area and composed of a light gray, moderately indurated, massive, quartz sandstone. A minimum of fractures were identified in core. In the permit area, this unit was saturated below an elevation of 6060 feet. The yield at one well was 4 gpm, with a transrnissivity of 50 gpd/ft. Due to minor fracturing within the Wheeler Coal Seam and the Rollins Sandstone, there is some potential that ground water could cross -communicate between these two seams. However, neither of these rock units are utilized for ground water within the vicinity of the mine, and, due to the extreme dip on the bedrock, development of water from these seams outside the permit area would be economically prohibitive. For these reasons, significant impacts to ground water quality and quantity in bedrock from mining at the Coal Ridge #1 Mine is not expected to occur. Springs and seeps within the permit area were identified by the applicant. One spring, located in South Canyon, to the east of the permit area, appeared to be seeping from beneath the toe of a possible slump or old fill. The flow at this spring has always been less than 1 gpm, and is evaporated before reaching any surface water body. The spring appears to be emanating from the Mesa Verde Group. • • - 16 - Two seeps were also located within the drainage of the proposed life -of -mine disposal area site. The water quality of both these seeps is typical of Mancos ground water, with a high content of sulfates and total dissolved solids (TDS). The Mancos Shale is generally considered to be a relatively impermeable rock unit. The presence of seeps from this shale indicates some component of ground water movement. The potential impact of this groundwater is discussed later in relationship to the proposed refuse disposal site for the life -of -mine plan. The major source of ground water along the Colorado River is provided by the alluvial deposits fringing the river which have relatively good water quality. Surface water tributaries and their alluvial bodies along the Colorado River also provide significant quantities of water for irrigation, stock, municipal and domestic purposes. Most local wells completed in the alluvial aquifers are less than 100 feet deep in the area of the mine. The alluvium in the area is recharged from contact with surface water of the Colorado River and its tributaries, and from upland sheet flow and snow melt. The alluvial bodies adjacent to the Colorado River will release water back to the surface water system during periods of low flow. Therefore, any impacts to the alluvial ground water also have potential to impact the quality or quantity of water within the Colorado River. The present permit term of the Coal Ridge #1 Mine will involve an operations plan that calls for minor disturbance both on the surface and underground, compared to the life -of -mine plan. The proposed surface disturbance for this permit term is 37.5 acres, compared to 256 acres for life -of -mine. The underground disturbance is proposed for 110 acres in this permit term, and 5900 acres for the life -of -mine plan. Obviously, the potential impacts of the life -of -mine plan are greater than under this permit term. This Probable Hydrologic Consequences section will focus upon those impacts of the life -of -mine, except where some variance might exist in this permit term. These life -of -mine impacts are projected to be worst case, and should not be realized during this permit term. The Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine is designed as a hydraulic mining process within the Wheeler coal seam. The hydraulic mining process is a relatively new development within the coal industry, which uses high pressure water to fracture and rubblize the coal. Entries within the coal seam are designed to move upslope so that gravity allows the slurry of coal and water to flow from the mining section to the portal. The entire mine is designed as a closed water system enabling reuse of almost all the water within the hydraulic system. The total acreage to be mined during the life -of -mine is 5,900 acres. The total surface disturbance proposed for the life -of -mine is 256 acres. • • - 17 - The surface facilities will be built on unconsolidated sediments, including colluvium and terrace deposits between the Colorado River and the Grand Hogback, and on exposed bedrock to the east and west. Surface runoff from the facilities will be totally contained within sediment ponds except for outslopes of the railroad and access roads. The total disturbance to alluvial material within the surface facilities is proposed as 6.4 acres. The surface facilities in the vicinity of the portal will include the shop and office area with parking. Coal preparation and storage facilities will also be present in this area. The mining process will produce both fine and coarse slurry which will be initially ponded on the colluvial terrace near the portal area. These ponds will be lined to restrict inflow into the underlying colluvial material. A thickener plant will be needed. This thickener plant will be a concrete structure precluding loss of water into the colluvium. A diversion ditch will be emplaced above the portal area and around the surface facilities to drain all natural runoff from the surface facilities area. All runoff from the surface facilities will be channeled into sediment ponds. These sediment ponds will be designed for total containment of the 10 year -24 hour storm. All excess runoff will be recycled into the hydraulic mining process. Accumulated sediment will be removed as necessary to ensure that the pond provides adequate storage at all times. An increased sediment yield will be experienced during construction of the railroad and access/haulroads. The outslopes of these areas will be revegetated. The potential for degrading of the hydrologic environment due to sediment generation will be short-term and any impact is expected to be minimal. A refuse embankment will be constructed in a small ephemeral drainage tributary to the Colorado River. The embankment will be underlain by the relatively impermeable Mancos Shale. The embankment will be formed of coarse refuse generated during the mining process and will impound the slurry refuse generated through the hydraulic mining process. The embankment will be designed to impound approximately 16,000,000 tons of refuse over an expected project life of 25 years. Construction will occur as a phased process where the embankment is always of sufficient height to hold the slurry and refuse from the mining process and to totally contain the probable maximum precipitation of the drainage area above the embankment. A sediment pond will be built downstream of the embankment, and will contain any runoff from the face of the refuse embankment occurring from storm events. This pond is designed to totally contain the 10 year -24 hour runoff event. This pond also serves a second function. Although the Mancos shale is relatively impermeable, a ground water investigation has shown that some element of ground water movement is present through the Mancos. A preliminary analysis by a consultant for the applicant indicates that seepage from the coal refuse impoundment will be about 50 to 60 gpm. This seepage is expected to surface in the channel downstream from the main coal refuse embankment. Pond B will be constructed to collect any seepage which may surface in the ephemeral channel. This seepage will be reused in the hydraulic mining process. • • - 18 - There is the potential for some seepage from the embankment reaching the alluvial valley floor just downstream from the embankment by short-circuiting around the sediment pond. Table 1 gives a comparison of mean water quality of ground water at the mine site. OW -9 is located within the drainage proposed for location of the refuse embankment. The existing water quality is very poor, with a mean conductivity of 5105 umhos/cm and a sulfate level of 3084 mg/l. This is characteristic of water draining from the Mancos Shale. Due to the existing poor water quality, it is not expected that seepage from the refuse embankment will decrease water quality in the downstream colluvial material beyond that present. OW -11 is an existing water well present in the alluvial material downstream of the proposed refuse site. This well has an extremely high sodium absorption ratio (SAR) of 23.1. The water quality of this well varies greatly from the expected quality of alluvial water for the area and suggests that contamination is occuring possibly due to casing or completion technique. The applicant has committed to drilling another well for alluvial monitoring at the mine site. This well will be drilled in adequate time to collect a year of baseline before construction begins at the refuse disposal site. This well will be placed to detect impact, if any, to the alluvium from seepage at the disposal site. The alluvium present in the vicinity of the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine and adjacent to the Colorado River is recharged by the Colorado River surface water and by surface runoff from the upland area. The subcrop of the Wheeler seam is located approximately 55 feet above the alluvium and dips steeply away from the alluvial body. Undermining of the alluvial body will not occur during the life -of -mine. Therefore, dewatering of the Wheeler seam due to mining is not expected to impact the alluvium or surface water system of the Colorado River. Hydraulic mining requires large quantities of water for operations such as cutting of the coal and in the slurry line transporting fine refuse to the waste site. The operation has facilities designed to process and recirculate the majority of water required for the operation. The water circulation is designed as a closed -system, with the major water loss occurring through evaporation, adhesion to the coal and refuse, and by seepage underground during mining. The application projects that water loss through these processes will require a makeup of approximately 600 acre feet of water annually to the system. The Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine has acquired water rights more than sufficient to augment their annual projected water loss. • . - 19 - TABLE 1. Mean Quality of Ground Water at the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine (From Tables 3.3-23 to 3.3-29B of Permit Application) Spec.Cond. pH Alkalinity BiCarb Hardness SAR TDS SO4 umhos/cm (as CaCO3) mg/1 (as CaCO3) mg/1 mg/1 9 mg/1 Rollins 1404 7.8 680 749 388 4.6 925 182 Sandstone 2 -SK -3H Wheeler 1541 7.5 576 783 517 4.05 1109 313 Coal Seam 3 -SK -3H Wheeler 803 8.8 457 435 103 9.3 550 26 Coal Seam SK -3.75 OW -8 956 7.4 378 455 580 0.4 716 234 Colluvium OW -9 5105 7.2 388 466 2445 4.7 4762 3084 Colluvium OW -10 1828 7.4 604 726 610 5.1 1320 467 Colluvium OW -11 3013 8.0 418 487 153 23.1 1813 187 Alluvium • • -20- The major water rights owned by the applicant are from the Vulcan Ditch, which originates in Canyon Creek, a tributary to the Colorado River on the north side of the River. The water from this ditch is siphoned underneath the Colorado River and has been historically used to flood irrigate the alluvial valley floor north and east of the surface facilities. During low -flow periods, the applicant has committed to giving priority to irrigation of the historic alluvial valley floor. There does exist the possibility that use of valid water rights by the applicant will detrimentally impact the quantity of water available to the Colorado River. The use of 600 acre-feet annually equals an average flow of 0.83 cfs. This reduction of the average 1983 flow of 4,969 cfs in the Colorado River is an insignificant impact. In conclusion, no significant impacts to the hydrologic balance are projected for the life -of -mine operation at the Coal Ridge No. 1 facilities. The foregoing discussion has detailed the impacts due to life -of -mine operations at Coal Ridge #1 Mine. As previously stated, this three year permit term will entail much less disturbance than the life -of -mine plan. This permit term calls for construction of the surface facilities and initial development in the coal seam. Total production anticipated during this permit term will be a maximum of 600,000 tons of clean coal, with a proposed maximum production of 15,000 tons of coal processing waste. The permanent refuse embankment is not permitted in this term. Therefore, a temporary storage at the surface facility will be required for the coal processing waste. This temporary waste pile will be located in the center of the surface facilities area near the area designated for raw coal storage and handling in the life -of -mine plan. This area will be a specially prepared work/storage pad which will drain into a diversion channel, and ultimately into a settlement pond. As this temporary refuse pile will be located on unconsolidated colluvial material, there is the potential for leaching through this waste pile into the colluvial material and ultimately into the alluvial ground water along the Colorado River. Due to the short storage time projected and the small size of the temporary refuse pile, it is not expected that any degradation of water quality within the alluvium will occur. Also, the monitoring plan as stipulated previously in this document will detect any changes if they occur within the water quality of the colluvial and alluvial material. An analysis of Probable Hydrologic Consequences of the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine has been performed by the applicant, as required under Rule 2.05.6(3). Several effects from the proposed operations have been identified and were discussed above. These effects are not anticipated to adversely impact the overall hydrologic balance and the operations proposed within the permit application have been designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the proposed permit area. Appropriate measures have been outlined within the application to ensure the protection of the quality and quantity of surface and ground waters within both the proposed permit and adjacent areas, from the adverse effects of the proposed mining activities. • • - 21 - IX. Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Study -- Rules 2.05.6(3) and 2.07.6(2)(c) This Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Study (CHIS) for the hydrologic basin of the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine has been prepared by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division (CMLRD) pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(c). This CHIS assesses the cumulative hydrologic impacts of all anticipated coal mining operations upon the Colorado River Valley in the vicinity of the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. Included in this assessment are the Eastside Mine and the proposed Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. These mines are both located along, or in close proximity to, the Colorado River. There are no other mines located in the general area, and no other mines with impacts that have the potential to cumulatively add to the effects of the Eastside and Coal Ridge No. 1 Mines to diminish or degrade the hydrologic balance. The permit applications for these mines are located at the offices of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, and are designated as follows: 1. Eastside Coal Co., Inc. --Eastside Mine, CMLRD File No. C-84-063 2. Storm King Mines --Coal Ridge No. 1 Underground Mine, CMLRD File No. C-84-•065 These two mining operations are underground operations. The life -of -mine areas of these mines are plotted on Figure 3. In addition, the area of surface disturbance, the area to be undermined during the permit term, and the area to be undermined during the life -of -mine are tabulated in Table 2. The Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine and the Eastside Mine are both located along the Grand Hogback Monocline. The Grand Hogback trends east-southeast in the area with rock strata dipping to the south-southwest at an average of 50°. The general direction of ground water movement is down dip. The life -of -mine boundaries of the Eastside and Coal Ridge No 1 Mines are 7 miles apart along strike. The coal seams to be mined are located within the lower section of the Mesa Verde Group in the upper portion of the Iles Formation (E -seam) and the lower portion of the Williams Fork Formation (Wheeler seam). The stratigraphy of the area is shown in Figure 2. These two seams are separated by 200 feet of interbedded shales, sandstones, siltstones, and coal. The five-year operation plan of the Eastside Mine calls for mining of the E -seam. The Coal Ridge No. 1 life -of -mine plan calls for mining of the Wheeler seam. The potential of the Mesa Verde to produce ground water within the area of these mines is greatly limited by the extreme dip of the rock strata. An oil and gas well drilled five miles southwest of the Eastside Mine encountered the Wheeler coal at a depth of 7300 feet. Another well drilled approximately 6 miles southwest of the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine encountered the Wheeler seam at approximately 9000 feet in depth (Tremain, 1983). • 21a • • • -22- As previously stated in Section VIII (the Probable Hydrologic Consequences of the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine), there is little potential for cross -communication between strata within the Mesa Verde Group due to the interbedded impermeable shales located throughout the section. Also, in the vicinity of the mines, the Mesa Verde Group is underlain and overlain by impermeable thick shale members of the Mancos and Wasatch Formations respectively. Therefore, the ability of ground water to migrate upward or downward through the section is extremely limited. For these reasons, the bedrock ground water impacts of each mine are localized to the immediate vicinity of the mine. It is assumed that ground water will not migrate along the strike. However, cumulative impacts to the hydrologic balance due to localized degradation or diminution of bedrock ground water could affect the nature of surface water and alluvial aquifers of the region. The Eastside and Coal Ridge No. 1 Mines are both located within the Colorado River Basin. The Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine is directly adjacent to the Colorado River, with the surface facilities located on alluvial/colluvial fan terraces approximately 50 feet above the Colorado River. The Eastside Mine is located on Harvey Gap, a tributary to the Colorado River. The probable hydrologic consequences of mining on Harvey Gap (Eastside Mine) are detailed in the following section. This CHIS addresses the potential of the hydrologic impacts predicted for the two mines to cumulatively affect the Colorado surface water system and the related ground water of the alluvium. TABLE 2 DISTURBED ACREAGE DUE TO COAL MINING IN THE CHIS AREA Disturbed Acreage Permit Term Life of Mine Mine Status Surface Under round Surface Under round Eastside Permitted 12 Storm King Permit Pending 81 (No Disturbance To -Date) 54 213 unknown 256 167 5900 • • -23- The main stem of the Colorado River below Glenwood Springs, Colorado, has a drainage area of 6013 sq. miles. The natural flow of the stream is affected by trans -mountain diversions, storage reservoirs, power development, and diversions for irrigation of approximately 110,000 acres. The average discharge of the stream at Glenwood Springs, for seventeen years of record, is 3,357 cfs. The maximum discharge on record occurred on June 25, 1983, and was 27,900 cfs. The 1984 water year maximum discharge is reported to have exceeded the previous maximum but the date of exceedance has not yet been published. The minimum discharge on record occurred on February 11, 1981-- 870 cfs. Selected chemical parameters and flow for the 1983 water year are presented in Table 3 for the Glenwood Springs U.S.G.S gaging station. Also given is the 1983 water year flows for the Colorado River near DeBeque, Colorado. The DeBeque gaging station is located approximately 54 river miles downstream of the Glenwood Springs station. The drainage area of the Colorado River at the DeBeque station is 7370 sq. miles. The Coal Ridge No. 1 surface facilities are proposed for location approximately 11 miles downstream of the gaging station at Glenwood Springs. The confluence of Harvey Gap with the Colorado River is approximately 20 miles downstream of the Glenwood Springs gaging station. The lowest average flows for the Colorado River in the area generally occur from September to March of each year, with February usually being the lowest flow month of the year. Highest flows are generally experienced in the month of June. Suspended solids levels within the Colorado River increase with increased flow. The opposite relationship exists with total dissolved solids, with the highest levels of TDS occurring during low flow. The Colorado River is a major source for irrigation water in the area. In general, the irrigation season is from April through October of each year. During these months, the levels of total dissolved solids are generally below 500 mg/1. During September and October, the TDS level in the Colorado River begins to rise to a point approaching or above 500 mg/1. This level is generally accepted as an indicator of moderate salinity hazard to plants, i.e., plants with a low salinity tolerance will experience decreased yield. There are thick alluvial bodies present along the Colorado River in the area of the mines. This alluvium is often used for agriculture. Water within the alluvium is a major source of shallow ground water for the region. The quantity and quality of water within the alluvium is intimately related to the water of the Colorado River, as the Colorado River is the major source of recharge for the alluvium. Conversely, this alluvium releases water back to the Colorado River during low -flow periods. • • -24- TABLE 3 SURFACE WATER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHIS AREA Site Flow Specific SAR Bicarb. TDS TSS cfs Cond. mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 umhos/crn min min min min min min max max max max max max mean mean mean mean mean mean Colo.River at 2,300 210 0.5 84 120 N/A Glenwood Springs 26,900 1,260 4 160 580 N/A 83 water yr 4,969 740 3 130 427 N/A Colo.River 1,200 346 1.0 N/A 197 45 near De Bequel 32,000 1,190 4 N/A 718 2600 83 water yr 5,827 779 2.5 N/A 472 724 Storm King Closed System -- No Effluent Proposed Mines Harvey Gap2 0.7 600 0.2 207 3713 10 66 730 0.6 386 1,054 26 N/A 670 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Chemistry from 82 water year, 83 not available 2 From Eastside Mines Permit Application C-84-063 3 From PHC predictions of Eastside Mine The alluvial bodies are not laterally continuous through the length of the Colorado River, but are dissected by meanderings of the Colorado and by the narrow flood plain of the Colorado River across the Grand Hogback Monocline. The surface facilities of the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine are east of the outcrop of the Grand Hogback, and on the south side of the Colorado River. The alluvial body present at the confluence of Harvey Gap and the Colorado River is on the north side of the Colorado River and to the west of the Grand Hogback outcrop. Therefore, these two alluvial bodies are not continuous. However, due to the relationship between the waters of the alluvial bodies and the Colorado River, there is a potential that impacts to the alluvium could be cumulative between the mines. • • -25- DESCRIPTION AND HYDROLOGIC IMPACTS OF MINING AT THE EASTSIDE MINE The Eastside Mine is located in Garfield County, approximately 3.5 miles north of the town of Silt. The proposed mine will affect 167 acres of non-federal land during the life -of -mine, with 54 acres being affected during the 5 -year permit term. This underground mining operation will result in 12 acres of surface disturbance with the surface facilities and roads. The mine is located adjacent to the perennial -flowing Harvey Gap Drainage. The Harvey Gap Drainage is a deeply incised north -south trending stream valley, which cuts through the resistant sandstone of the Grand Hogback. The nature of this drainage has been altered by construction of canals and a reservoir for irrigation. The Grass Valley Reservoir is located 600 feet upstream of the minesite on Harvey Gap Creek. The water in this reservoir is impounded during high flow seasons from the headwaters of Harvey Gap and from water diverted from the headwaters of East Rifle Creek through the Grass Valley Canal. The impounded water is released from April 15 to October 15 to irrigate almost 6000 acres of land in the Silt and Rifle area. The Eastside Mine will be developed in coals of the Iles and William Fork Formations of the Mesa Verde Group. This 5 -year permit is for mining in the E -Seam of the Iles Formation. This seam is approximately 20 feet thick and dips 59° on the average to the south. Coal will be mined by continuous miner or conventional section with approximately 200,000 tons per year projected as maximum production. The life -of -mine plan includes recovery of the Wheeler seams of the Williams Fork Formation, which are separated from the E -Seam by 200 feet of strata characterized as predominately marine shales. The maximum production for the life -of -mine plan is projected at 1,000,000 tons per year. The probable hydrologic consequences of mining at the Eastside Mine have been previously detailed in the Proposed Decision and Findings of Compliance for the Eastside Mine issued December 14, 1984, and on file at the Division. A summary of the projected impacts as detailed in this study follow. Three domestic wells were found to have been completed in the shallow bedrock aquifers of the area of the Eastside Mine. It was projected that mining at the Eastside Mine would not affect these wells because of the extreme dip of bedrock in the area and because of separation of the producing aquifers of these wells from the mined seams at the Eastside Mine by 200 feet or more of shale units. A worst case projected impact to surface water quality was made based upon the following scenarios. The low flow surface water condition was used to predict worst case. These low flow condition occur during periods of non -irrigation from October 15 to April 15, when the Grass Valley Reservoir outlets are closed to store water for the irrigation season. Base flow occurs due to seepage through the reservoir embankment. Base flow is 0.5 cfs at an average TDS of 755 mg/1. • • -26- This base flow was merged with the maximum orifice flow of the pond located at the refuse disposal site with a predicted worst case TDS value of 1910 mg/1 at a flow of 0.1 cfs. This resulted in a predicted increase in TDS to 948 mg/1. This data was merged with orifice flow from the pond at the surface facilities projected to have a worst-case chemistry of 1690 mg/1 of TDS at a flow of 0.1 cfs. This resulted in an increase of TDS to 1054 mg/1 for the worst case chemistry. This condition could exist only during the non -irrigation season, so the increase is not considered significant to irrigation use of the stream water. In summary, the level of TDS rose from 755 mg/1 to 1054 mg/1., with a flow of 0.7 cfs. The alluvium along the Colorado River directly adjacent to the Harvey Gap Drainage could be negatively impacted by this increased level of TDS. During the snowmelt period, the alluvium is recharged by the surface water system. Therefore, the alluvium immediately adjacent to Harvey Gap could experience a rise in the level of TDS from early spring to April 15 (start of outflow from the Grass Valley Reservoir). A well completed in the Colorado alluvium had a TDS level of 760 mg/1. The worst-case quality projection for Harvey Gap water was 1054 mg/1. As this was an extreme projection of worst case, and would not exist for long periods of time, any degradation of water quality within the alluvium should not be significant. The worst case condition of TDS increase was also projected for the irrigation season. The lowest outflow from the Grass Valley Reservoir during this period was projected as 7 cfs (from a hydrograph submitted in the Eastside permit application). A water quality of 330 mg/1 TDS for this discharge was used. Merging this flow and concentration with outflow from the ponds of the refuse and surface facilities areas gave a rise in TDS to 352 mg/1 downstream of the mine. This rise is insignificant and would have no effect on the usability of the water. In summary, the level of salinity in the Harvey Gap surface water system was not projected to rise significantly during the critical irrigation season. The level of TDS would rise in a worst-case scenario during the non -irrigation season. The alluvium directly recharged by the Harvey Gap surface water system could experience a rise in TDS levels. However, due to the already high level of TDS in the alluvium, this rise is not projected to diminish the agricultural use of the alluvial water. The potential for diminution or degradation of bedrock groundwater in the area for mining activities at Eastside was found to be negligible. This is due to the small size of the mine, the lack of communication of the coal seam with overlying and underlying beds due to interbedded shale layers, and the lack of potential of any rock strata within the affected section to supply a quality ground water resource. • • -27- Cumulative Hydrologic Impact The worst case impact of mining at the Eastside Mine was a predicted increase in TDS during the non -irrigation season from a baseline of 755 mg/1 to 1054 Frig/1 with a flow of 0.7 cfs. The low -flow on record for the Colorado River at Glenwood Springs is. 870 cfs. The mean level of TDS in the Colorado River during the 83 water year was 427 mg/1. Loading of the worst-case level of TDS in Harvey Gap into the low -flow of the Colorado River gave a rise in TDS of 0.5 mg/l. This rise is insignificant and would not affect the quality of the Colorado River. No other significant impacts to the hydrologic balance were predicted due to mining at the Eastside Mine. No impacts to quality of the Colorado River or associated alluvium were projected from mining at Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. Use of water for the hydraulic mining process was projected to consume 600 acre feet from the Colorado River system. This equals an average flow of 0.83 cfs. The average flow of the Colorado River during 1983 was 4,969 cfs. Therefore, the impact of the consumptive water used at the mine site is insignificant. In conclusion, based on information currently available, mining at the Eastside and Coal Ridge No. 1 operations is not projected to cumulatively impact the quality or quantity of ground water or surface water within the Colorado Basin. The assessment of the probable cumulative impacts of all anticipated coal mining in the general area of the Coal Ridge No. 1 on the hydrologic balance has been made by the Division, and the operations proposed under this application have been designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside of the proposed permit area. Reference Tremain, Carol M. 1983. Coal Bed Methane Potential of the Piceance Basin, Colorado. Colorado Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado 80203. Open - File Report 82-1. X. Alluvial Valley Floors - Rules 2.06.8 and 4.24 Information on alluvial valley floors reviewed by the Division is contained in Section 5.1 of Volume I and figures 5.1-1, 5.1-2, 5.2-1, and 5.2-2 of Volume V of the application. The applicant identified unconsolidated streamlaid deposits along the Colorado River, Alkali Creek, and South Canyon Creek. South Canyon Creek is not hydrologically adjacent to the proposed mine for this permit term, therefore, it will not be considered in this alluvial valley floor (AVF) determination. Alkali Creek and the Colorado River will be discussed separately below. • • -28- Alkali Creek Only a small portion of the proposed permit area is within the Alkali Creek drainage basin. The permit area within this drainage is limited to approximately three miles of light use road to monitoring well SK 3.75. The applicant submitted very little AVF information on this drainage. Therefore, the Division must conservatively assume that the unconsolidated streamlaid deposits in Alkali Creek comprise a significant alluvial valley floor. Alkali Creek Findings 1) None of the light use road is located within the alluvial valley floor. Based on that fact, the Division finds that the proposed operation will not interrupt, discontinue, or preclude farming on the alluvial valley floor. 2) Surface waters which supply the alluvial valley floor are derived from the Alkali Creek drainage and Garfield Creek. Water is diverted from the Garfield Creek drainage through the Sykes and Alford trans -basin ditch into Porter Reservoir. The water in Porter Reservoir is then directed to Alkali Creek through the Roderick ditch as needed. Other small reservoirs are located in the lower reaches of Alkali Creek. The only anticipated effect to surface water in the Alkali Creek drainage is a slight increase in suspended solids. The light use road construction techniques are in conformance with all applicable design standards, therefore, the slight increase in suspended solids should have an insignificant effect on the quality of water in Alkali Creek. There should be no effect on the quantity of water in the Alkali Creek drainage basin due to the light use road. The roads will be constructed with adequate cross -drains capable of passing the peak flow from a 10 -year 24-hour precipitation event. In addition, there will be no detention structures associated with this road. Based on the above discussion, the Division finds that the proposed operation will not materially damage the quantity and quality of water in the surface and underground water systems that supply the alluvial valley floor or portions of the alluvial valley floor. 3) The proposed mining operation will not physically disturb the alluvial valley floor. As discussed above, there will be no effects on the quantity and quality of water supplied to the AVF. Therefore, the Division finds that the proposed mining operations will be conducted to preserve, throughout the mining and reclamation process, the essential hydrologic functions of the alluvial valley floor. • 1 -29- Colorado River The applicant identified unconsolidated streamlaid deposits within and adjacent to the proposed permit area which meet the minimum size requirement of 50 feet in width by 10 acres in extent as set by the OSM alluvial valley floor guidelines. These unconsolidated streamlaid deposits border the Colorado River. Three distinct types of unconsolidated deposits were mapped which meet the geomorphic criteria for alluvial valley floors. These deposits are quaternerary terrace deposits, quaternerary transition zone between terrace and colluvial outwash and quaternerary colluvial outwash. The unconsolidated sediments cover approximately 500 acres in the area of the surface facilities between the Colorado River and the Grand Hogback. Of the 500 acres, 216 acres are colluvial outwash, 136 acres are terrace deposits. Most of the area mapped as terrace and transition zone deposits is presently used for irrigated agriculture. Only a small portion of the area mapped as colluvial outwash is presently used for irrigated agriculture. The source of water for irrigation is the Vulcan ditch which diverts water from Canyon Creek. Canyon Creek is located north of the Colorado River. In addition to the area presently used for irrigated agriculture, two areas exhibited characteristics of subirrigation (Figure 5.2-2). The largest area is adjacent to the Colorado River. The source of the water for subirrigation of this area is most likely the Vulcan ditch, since the area is approximately 20 feet above the level of the Colorado River. The only other area exhibiting subirrigation is in a small ephemeral drainage. This area is split in half by the Vulcan ditch. The only possible sources of water for irrigation of the areas identified as unconsolidated sediments are Canyon Creek, the Colorado River, and South Canyon Creek. All the area below the Vulcan ditch can be irrigated with water from Canyon Creek, therefore, this area meets the water availability criteria for an AVF. Water from Canyon Creek cannot be used to irrigate the unconsolidated sediments above the Vulcan ditch due to the physical barrier of elevation differences. In order to irrigate the remaining area from South Canyon Creek and the Colorado River, over 9 and 14 miles of,ditch, respectively, would have to be constructed over extremely steep terrain. Water from the Colorado River would have to be diverted in Glenwood Canyon and the ditch would have to be Constructed through Glenwood Springs. It is not the regional practice to divert water over extremely rough terrain, therefore, the area above the Vulcan ditch does not meet the water availability criteria for an AVF. The exception to this is the subirrigated area above the Vulcan ditch. Based upon the above discussion, the Division has determined that all the area underlain by unconsolidated streamlaid deposits below the Vulcan ditch plus the small subirrigated area above the Vulcan Ditch is an alluvial valley floor. For reference, the alluvial valley floor includes all the area denoted as: 1) land presently flood irrigated; 2) land historically flood irrigated; and 3) areas of probable sub -irrigation, as shown on Figure 5.2-2 of Volume V of the application. 1 • -30- Colorado River Findings 1) None of the proposed mining operation will be located within the alluvial valley floor. Therefore, the Division finds that the proposed operation will not interrupt, discontinue, or preclude farming on the alluvial valley floor. 2) Surface waters which supply the alluvial valley floor are diverted from Canyon Creek on the opposite side of the Colorado River from the surface facilities. One of the major sources of water for hydraulic mining will be the Vulcan Ditch. A total of 115 acres of land are presently flood irrigated. Storm King projects that two to four acre-feet of water per year is required to irrigate each acre of land. Based on historic records, the average flow in the Vulcan ditch is 1,400 acre-feet. A maximum of 460 acre-feet (1.6 cfs average flow) will be required to irrigate the AVF during the five month irrigation season, leaving adequate water for use in the hydraulic mining operation. Storm King has committed to supplying adequate water to the AVF even if it means stopping the use of water from the Vulcan ditch by the mining operation. In order to aid the Division in tracking this commitment, the following stipulation is necessary. Stipulation No. 4 THE PERMITTEE MUST AT ALL TIMES SUPPLY ADEQUATE WATER FOR FLOOD IRRIGATION OF THE ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOOR BELOW THE VULCAN DITCH. IF, AT ANY TIME DURING THE IRRIGATION SEASON (MAY, JUNE, JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER), THE FLOW IN THE VULCAN DITCH DROPS BELOW 1.6 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, THE PERMITTEE MUST RECEIVE DIVISION APPROVAL, BASED ON A DEMONSTRATION THAT THE WATER IS NOT NECESSARY FOR IRRIGATION OF THE AVF, BEFORE USING THE WATER IN THE MINING OPERATION. The water supply for the subirrigated area near the Colorado River is, as previously discussed, groundwater flow due to irrigation from the Vulcan ditch. As long as Storm King supplies adequate water for flood irrigation, the source of water for subirrigating this area will not be affected. The source of water for the subirrigated area bisected by the Vulcan ditch is a small ephemeral drainage. The proposed operation will not affect any of the area tributary to this drainage, therefore, there should be no effect on the water supply to this subirrigated area. Based on the above discussion, the Division finds that the proposed operation will not materially damage the quantity and quality of water in the surface and underground water systems that supply the alluvial valley floor or portions of the alluvial valley floor. - 31 - 3) The proposed mining operation will not physically disturb the alluvial valley floor. As discussed above, there will be no effects on the quantity and quality of water supplied to the AVF. To verify that the proposed mining operation will not materially damage the AVF, surface water will be monitored, and ground water downgradient of the disturbed area will be monitored. The Division finds that the proposed mining operations will be conducted to preserve, throughout the mining and reclamation process, the essential hydrologic functions of the alluvial valley floor. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. XI. Climatological Information and Air Resources - Rules 2.04.8, 2.05.4(2)(h), 2.05.6(1), and 4.17 Baseline information on climate and air quality in the area is presented in the application in Volume I, pages 3-103 through 3-109. Air pollution control measures are described on pages 4-79 through 4-80 in Volume I of the permit application. The climate in the area is semi -arid with moderate summers and long, cold winters. The average annual precipitation in the general area is 16.23 inches, most of which occurs in the fail and winter. The prevailing winds in the mine site area are from the southeast with an average velocity of 5.3 mph. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirement of this section. XII. Topsoil - Rules 2.04.9, 2.05.3(5), 2.05.4(2)(d), and 4.06 Baseline soils information and the topsoil removal and redistribution plans in Volume I, pages 3-109 to 3-123 and 4-65 to 4-68 and Volume II, Appendix 3.5-1 were reviewed for compliance with the regulations. Two soil types occur within the proposed disturbed area: the Heldt Silty clay and the Nihil Stony loam. Average salvage depth for the Heldt Silty clay is 60 inches and 12 inches for the Nihill Stony loam. Textures of these soils range form loam to silty clay. The soils have a low electrical conductivity (EC) and sodium absorption ratio (SAR). Most of the surface and subsurface soil horizons rate fair to good as a source of topsoil material. Topsoil will be salvaged from all areas proposed to be disturbed and placed in topsoil stockpiles. The location of topsoil stockpiles are shown on map 3.5-1. Upon completion of backfilling and grading operations, topsoil will be redistributed. Approximately 12 inches of topsoil will be replaced over the entire disturbed area. This should be adequate to achieve reclamation since the majority of the revegetation species have root systems which concentrate within this or lesser depth, and the soils exhibit no properties that should limit plant growth. The proposed operation is in compliance with topsoil requirements • • -32- XIII. Vegetation - Rules 2.04.10, 2.05.4(2)(e), and 4.15 The Division reviewed the application for compliance with the appropriate sections of the Rules and Regulations. Vegetation baseline information is contained on pages 3-124 through 3-142 of Volume I, Appendices 3.6-1 in Volume II, and 3.6-2 and 3.6-3 in Volume VI; the revegetation plan is contained on pages 4-68 and 69, and 4-71 through 74 in Volume I. The Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine proposes to disturb significant acreage in three vegetation communities and a small area of a fourth community during the life of the mine. The applicant proposes to disturb 104 acres of sagebrush community, 113 acres of pinon-juniper vegetation type, 30 acres of irrigated hayland, and 9 acres of mountain shrub. The applicant had vegetation baseline studies of varying scope and location undertaken by three different consultants during different years (1981, 1983, and 1983). At this time, the applicant proposes to disturb acreage contained in the sagebrush community only. Therefore, the Division has reviewed the application with respect to the proposed phase A disturbance. Findings are made with respect only to the sagebrush community, and proposed disturbance in phase A only. After much discussion, it was determined that the applicant has adequately sampled cover, production, woody plant density, and diversity for the sagebrush community affected and reference areas. In reviewing the revegetation plan, several areas were not addressed sufficiently to allow the Division to make a finding of compliance. For this reason the following stipulation is required. Stipulation No. 5 THE PERMITTEE SHALL REVISE THE PERMIT WITHIN 120 DAYS OF APPROVAL TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. IN THE CASE OF REQUIRED CHANGES, BELOW, THE PERMITTEE MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE DIVISION PRIOR TO THE STIPULATION BEING SATISFIED. REVEGETATION PLAN 1. THE DIVISION IS SETTING A WOODY PLANT DENSITY STANDARD OF 1000 LIVE STEMS/ACRE FOR THE REVEGETATION SUCCESS STANDARD FOR THE SAGEBRUSH COMMUNITY. • • -33- 2. THE DIVISION IS SETTING THE FOLLOWING SPECIES DIVERSITY REVEGETATION SUCCESS STANDARD: "SPECIES DIVERSITY WILL BE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE ON THE REVEGETATED SAGEBRUSH COMMUNITY AREAS IF THE PERMITTEE HAS ESTABLISHED TWO SPECIES OF COOL -SEASON BUNCH GRASSES, TWO SPECIES OF COOL -SEASON SOD GRASSES, TWO SPECIES OF LEGUMINOUS FORBS, AND TWO SPECIES OF WOODY PLANTS; EACH SPECIES OF THE ABOVE BEING REPRESENTED BY NOT LESS THAN 3% RELATIVE COVER OR MORE THAN 40% RELATIVE COVER ON THE REVEGETATED SURFACE." Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(n) and based on available information, the Division finds that the proposed activities would not affect the continued existence of endangered plant species or result in destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats as determined under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. With the acceptance and satisfaction of the above stipulation the proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. XIV. Fish and Wildlife Information - Rules 2.04.11, 2.05.6(2), and 4.18 Fish and wildlife information can be found on pages 3-143 through 3-171 in Volume I of the application. The fish and wildlife protection plan is on pages 4-81 through 4-82 of Volume I. The proposed permit and adjacent area hosts a wide range of wildlife species. This is largely due to the existence of numerous distinct habitats at the mine site. Wildlife which currently inhabits the area may be displaced by surface activities. However, there are many acres of similar habitat surrounding the mine area which can easily absorb displaced individuals. There are no threatened or endangered species which are known to use or inhabit the site. However it is possible that the site is used as hunting grounds for some Peregrine Falcons which nest to the north and east. The Division requested comments from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW). No comments were received by the Division. Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(n) and on the basis of available information, the Division finds that the proposed activities would not affect the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. The Division finds the proposed operation in compliance with the requirements of this section. • • -34- XV. 34 - XV. Prime Farmlands - Rules 2.04.12, 2.06.6, and 4.25 The Division has made a negative determination on the presence of prime farmlands within the proposed permit area. The decision was based on evidence provided by the Soil Conservation Service on pages 3-171 to 3-173 in Volume I of the application. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. XVI. Operations Description - Rules 2.05.2, 2.05.3(1), 2.05.3(2), and 4.01 Information on the proposed operation plan is located on pages 4-1 through 4-64 of Volume I. Hydraulic mining is to be conducted in the Wheeler Seam. Initially, twin rock tunnels will be driven to the Wheeler Seam. Once the seam is accessed, a roadheader will be used to drive entryways. Coal mined by the roadheader will be flumed to the preparation facility. A hydraulic monitor which mines using a high-pressure water jet will be used to mine the coal after entries are driven. All coal will be flumed to the preparation plant. It is projected that coal production will be approximately 250,000 tons per year during this permit term. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. XVII. Explosives - Rules 2.05.3(b) and 4.08 The section on use of explosives in Section 4 of Volume I of the permit application was reviewed for compliance. The applicant proposed to conduct limited blasting operations during construction of the portal face -up and site preparation for the facilities. Explosives will be stored in the bunker as shown on Figure 4.2-3. Storm King Mines has committed to performing pre -blast surveys in the "general proximity of the blasting area" outside the strictly required one-half mile limit. The proposed operation is in compliance with blasting requirements. XVIII. Backfillin• and Gradin• - Rules 2.05.2. 6 b , 2.05.4(2)( 2.05.4 2 c , 4.09, 4.13, and 4.14 The permit application includes a discussion of backfilling and grading on page 4-70. The surface facilities to be constructed will be located on a gently sloping area containing only small ephemeral drainages. Minimal cut and fill work will therefore be required. This will mean also that minimal grading will be required during reclamation. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. • • - 35 - XIX. Coal Processing and Non -Coal Processing Waste - Rules 2.05.3(8), 2.05.42)(f), 4.10, and 4.11 Information on Coal processing waste and non -coal processing waste reviewed by the Division is in Section 4 of Volume I and Appendix 3.3-2, 3.3-3a, and 3.3-3b of Volume II of the permit application. The applicant amended the originally proposed mine plan to divide the plan into two Phases, A and B. Phase A includes the development of a test mine, without the permanent coal processing waste slurry embankment. The applicant has amended pages 4-15d and 4-15e to describe the temporary stockpile storage of coal processing waste in the stockpile area adjoining the raw coal stockpile. The applicant projects 2% waste, based upon analysis of the resource drilling performed on the coal seam to be mined. A total of 600,000 tons of coal will be produced during Phase A, resulting in a projected 12,000 tons of coal processing waste. The applicant proposes to store the coal processing waste in a temporary stockpile to measure 380 feet long by 115 feet wide by 12 feet high. Side slopes will not exceed a gradient of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical slope). The stockpiles location is depicted on Figure 4.2-7A. In order to assure timely approval of the eventual Phase B coal processing waste slurry embankment, the Division imposes the following stipulation upon permit approval for Phase A of the proposed operations. Stipulation No. 6 THE DIVISION REQUIRES THAT STORM KING MINING COMPLETE AN APPROVABLE "DETAILED ENGINEERING PLAN" FOR THE PERMANENT PHASE B WASTE SLURRY EMBANKMENT AND SUBMIT THE PLAN TO THE DIVISION ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS PERMIT. THE DETAILED PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS A PERMIT REVISION. FURTHER, IF 12,000 TONS OF WASTE IS PRODUCED PRIOR TO OBTAINING APPROVAL OF THE PERMANENT WASTE EMBANKMENT, MINING OPERATIONS SHALL CEASE UNTIL AN APPROVAL IS OBTAINED FOR PERMANENT DISPOSAL OF ADDITIONAL WASTE. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. XX. Mine Facilities, Coal Handlin• Structures, and Su.•ort Facilities - Rules 2.05.3 3 2.05.3, and 4.04 Information concerning these facilities can be found on pages 4-29 through 4-40c of Volume I of the permit application. The surface facilities are to be built in two phases. These two phases are reflected in Figures 4.2-7A, which shows the development phase (1985-86), and 4.2-7 and 4.2-8, which show the final, full production phase. During the development phase, SKM will be using an off-site loadout maintained by the railroad. • • - 36 - Questions and concerns arose during the permit review regarding structure locations, construction phasing, open coal storage, and conveyor construction. These issues have been adequately resolved through subsequent submittals. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. XXI. Roads - Rules 2.05.3(3) and 4.03 The Roads Section in Volume I, Section 4 and the Road Drainage Section in Volume VI of the application were reviewed for compliance. The applicant proposes to construct an access road to the surface facilities which will be temporarily used as a haul road until the proposed railroad is constructed; a haul road from the surface facilities area to the coal refuse embankments; and several light use roads along the pipeline corridors, transmission line corridor, and monitoring sites. The applicant proposes to retain the access and haul roads as part of the post mining land use. Since the access road is to be temporarily used as a haul road, it must meet the standards of Rule 4.03.1 as a haul road. This includes certification that the road has been constructed as designed. The applicant has committed to certification of the access road following completion. The designs of the access road meet all the requirements of Rule 4.03.1 for drainage, grade, road cuts, and road embankments, with one exception. The applicant has not completed a site specific structural and foundation analysis to establish design standards for road embankment stability. Therefore, the following information is necessary to verify that the road embankments will be stable. Stipulation No. 7 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACCESS ROAD, THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR EMBANKMENT STABILITY, FOR DIVISION APPROVAL. THE ANALYSIS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH RULE 4.03.1(3)(d)(vii). THE DESIGN STANDARDS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS A REVISION TO THE PERMIT APPLICATION. The applicant will use light -use roads to monitoring stations constructed under an exploration plan approved by the Division. These roads are shown on figures 4.2-3, 4.2-4, and 4.2-5. The road designs meet all the requirements of Rule 4.03.3. These roads are planned to be left as part of the post -mining land use as requested by the landowners. With satisfactory resolution of the above stipulation, the proposed operation will be in compliance with the requirements of this section. • • -37- XXII. Bonding - Rule 2.05.4(2)(b) Storm King Mines, Inc. has agreed to post a performance bond in the amount of $225,000.00. The Division has determined that this amount will be sufficient to cover the cost of reclamation at the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. Pursuant to Rules 2.07.2(2)(j) and 3.02.1(1), the performance bond will be filed with the Division, payable to the State of Colorado before a permit will be issued. XXIII. Sealing of Drill Holes and Underground openings - Rules 2.05.4(2)(g) and 4.07 Closure plans for drill holes, mine portals, and shafts are delineated on pages 4-69a of Volume I of the application. The sealing plans meet all the requirements of Rules 2.05.4(2)(g) and 4.07. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. XXIV. Subsidence - Rules 2.05.6(6) and 4.20 Information on subsidence reviewed by the Division is in Section 4 of Volume I of the application, and Appendix 4.5-1 of Volume VI of the application. Appendix 4.5-1 discusses the mechanisms controlling the character of roof strata failure and anticipated gob movements in relation to bedrock dip. The applicant observes that a slight possibility exists for sinkhole collapse to occur near the outcrop crown pillar. The application proposes a specific visual monitoring program to concentrate in areas over and adjacent to the crown pillar, in order to specifically detect potential sinkhole collapse (page 41.1). The application also presents a proposed mitigative program for sinkhole collapse, were it to occur. On page 43.3 of Appendix 4.5-1 the applicant proposes that access be restricted to any areas of sinkhole collapse and that appropriate amendments be made to the mine plan. The Division believes it prudent, in order to assure protection of the Public health and safety to impose the following stipulation upon permit approval. Stipulation No. 8 THE DIVISION REQUIRES THE PERMITTEE , IN THE EVENT THAT SINKHOLE SUBSIDENCE COLLAPSE WERE DETERMINED, BY THE DIVISION, TO CONSTITUTE A POTENTIAL HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, TO IMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE SEALING AND BACKFILLING OF SINKHOLE COLLAPSE FEATURES. The application observes that moderate slumping and landsliding is limited to areas "outside and below the anticipated areas of surface subsidence effects" (page 39.5); the Division concurs with that opinion. There appears, however, to be extensive geomorphic evidence that ancient slope movements have occurred throughout large portions of the slopes on the northeast face of Coal Ridge. • 1 - 38 - On pages 41.1 and 41.2 of Appendix 4.5-1, the applicant describes a proposed visual monitoring program which will specifically observe slope characteristics considered indicative of slope movement, such as"...surf ace cracking, movement of large rock blocks, and the development of bulging ground near the base of the slope." Appendix 4.5-1 also presents a detailed proposed program for mitigation of slope stability problems. Simplistically, in areas where no danger is presented to structures, mine personnel, or the public, the applicant proposes to restrict access and visually observe manifested slope instability phenomena. In any areas where a hazard exists to structures, mine personnel, or the public, the operator will also, "...as necessary and appropriate, provide slope stabilization techniques". As amended, however, vagueness exists concerning the role of the Division in the decision of whether or not a hazard to structures, mine personnel, or the public exists. To avoid possible future confusion the Division imposes the following stipulation upon permit approval. Stipulation No. 9 THE DIVISION REQUIRES THE PERMITTEE , IN THE EVENT THAT ANY SLOPE INSTABILITY IS DETERMINED BY THE DIVISION TO HAVE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE AFFECTED AREA, TO SUBMIT TO THE DIVISION FOR REVIEW AN ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES AND RESULTANT HAZARDS OF ANY SUCH UNSTABLE SLOPE AREA. USING THIS ANALYSIS, THE DIVISION SHALL DECIDE WHETHER A HAZARD IS REPRESENTED BY ANY SPECIFIC SLOPE MOVEMENT EVENT AND WHETHER A SLOPE STABILIZATION PROGRAM SHOULD BE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED. The applicant's proposed subsidence monitoring program includes the installation of one linear set of widely -spaced subsidence monitoring monuments, oriented perpendicular to the spine of Coal Ridge. Considering the importance of verifying subsidence projections contained within the application (Appendix 4.5-1), reliance upon only one limited set of monuments is considered imprudent. However, the application also includes a separate letter and supporting communique from the U.S. Bureau of Mines indicating that a subsidence research program would be instigated at the Coal Ridge mine, which would provide supplemental subsidence monitoring facilities. In order to,assure that an adequate subsidence monitoring program is approved and in operation prior to any development within the coal seam, the Division imposes the following stipulation upon permit approval. Stipulation No. 10 IF THE U.S. BUREAU OF MINES AND THE PERMITTEE HAVE NOT AGREED TO A SUBSIDENCE MONITORING PROGRAM ACCEPTABLE TO THE DIVISION PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE ROCK TUNNEL, THE DIVISION WILL REQUIRE THE PERMITTEE TO AMEND ITS CURRENT SUBSIDENCE MONITORING PROGRAM. FURTHER, NO MINING SHALL OCCUR WITHIN THE COAL SEAM UNTIL THE PERMITTEE HAS OBTAINED APPROVAL FROM THE DIVISION FOR THE AMENDED SUBSIDENCE MONITORING PROGRAM. • • -39- It will be important to clearly present the results of the visual and survey monitoring programs at the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. The amended application presents no detail regarding the format of the semi-annual subsidence monitoring reports. In the interest of facilitating complete and efficient presentation of the accumulated subsidence monitoring data, the Division imposes the following stipulation upon the permit approval. Stipulation No. 11 THE DIVISION DIRECTS THE PERMITTEE TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT A FORMAT FOR THE REQUIRED SEMI-ANNUAL SUBSIDENCE MONITORING REPORTS. THIS PROPOSED REPORT FORMAT SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR DIVISION REVIEW WITHIN SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT. FURTHER, THE PERMITTEE SHALL HAVE OBTAINED APPROVAL OF THE SUBSIDENCE REPORT FORMAT PRIOR TO ANY MINING WITHIN THE COAL SEAM. With satisfactory resolution of the above stipulation, the proposed operation will be in compliance with the requirements of this section. XXV. Special Categories of Mining (Other than AVF and Prime Farmlands) - Rules 2.06, 4.22, 4.23, 4.27, 4.28, and 4.29 The only special category of mining that applies to the proposed Coal Ridge No. 1 mining operation is steep slope mining. Portions of the proposed permit area qualify as steep slope mining areas, exhibiting slope gradients in excess of 20°. Portions of these steep slope mining areas will be subsided during the first five year permit term. Based upon the information contained within the permit application and with satisfactory resolution of the stipulations in Section XXII (Subsidence) of this findings document, the proposed operation will be in compliance with the requirements of this section. XXVI. Miscellaneous Compliance - Rules 2.03.3, 2.05.6(5), 4.02, 4.12, 4.19, 4.21, 4.28, and 4.30 The applicant has met the requirements for format and supplemental information as shown on pages 1-1 through 1-7, and pages 2-=3 through 203k of Volume I. No surface mining is planned near underground mines. Signs, and markers will be installed in compliance with Rule 4.02. The Division finds the proposed operation in compliance with the requirements of this section. • -40- XXVII. Operations on Lands Subject to Limitations or Prohibitions - Rules 2.03.7 and 2.10 The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of Rule 2.07.2(2)(d) for the following reasons: The permit area of the proposed operation is not within: a. Any area designated unsuitable for mining b. Any areas under study for designation as unsuitable for mining c. Any lands subject to prohibitions or limitations The proposed permit boundary includes several thousand feet of Garfield Count Road 335 or is within 100 feet of the outside right-of-way of this public road. In addition, portions of this road are to be used as a coal haul road temporarily. The operator has committed to meeting the necessary requirements of Rule 2.07.6(2)(d)(iv) before any construction activities commence. Therefore, the following stipulation is included in order to ensure follow-up. Stipulation No. 12 THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION OF THE NOTICE AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 2.07.6 (2)(d)(iv) FOR GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD 335 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION COMMENCEMENT. XXVIII. Demonstration that Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations can be Feasible Accomplished - Rule 2.07.6(2)(b) Contingent upon the satisfactory resolution of stipulations and requirements presented in the findings document, the following finding of compliance is valid: The Division finds, pursuant to 2.07.6(2)(b) , based on information in the application and from all available sources, that surface coal mining and reclamation operations can be feasible accomplished under the Mining and Reclamation Plan contained in the application. XXIX. Compatibility with Anticipated Adjacent Operations'- Rule 2.07.6(2)(i) Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(i), the Division finds that SKM operations will not be inconsistent with other operations to be performed in areas adjacent to the proposed permit area. XXX. Reclamation Fees Required by 30CFR, Chapter VII, Subchapter R - Rule 2.07.6(2)(o) Storm King Mines, Inc. has not previously operated a coal mining operation in the United States. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to pay reclamation fees until mining commences. Based on the above, the Division finds that the proposed operation is in compliance with Rule 2.07.6(2)(o). Doc. No. 6974 4 _ _ , Jar/ '. ;�...' . 7 0 , jot Cr: PA TM} =N w' jF tLr `"' '1hornis M. Vernon, M.U. Executive Director CERTIFIED NO: P555466675 STORM KING MINES - Twin Park Tunnel Construction Mr. E. Peter Matthies, President 9137 East Mineral Circle Englewood, Colorado 80112 RE: Final Permit, Colorado Wastewater Discharge Permit System Number: C00070012 Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a copy of the permit issued under the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. Your discharge permit requires that specific actions be performed at designated times. You are legally obligated to comply with all terms and conditions of your permit. Please read the permit and if you have any questions contact this office at 320-8333, extension 3740. Sincerel IG_ ark" C.lBroe man Di rec or WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION Enclosure XC: Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency Regional Council of Governments Local County health Department District Engineer, Field Services Section, WQCD, CDH Stan May, Field Services Section, WflCD, CDH Seth Goldstein, Administrative Section, WQCD, CDH Cinny Torrez, DMR File, Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD, CDH Sandy Squire, Industrial Enforcement/ Permit Drafters, Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD, CDH Permit No. COG -070012 Facility No.: cDOS GENERAL PERMIT F'()tt CJNS='RUCTLI)N DEWATERING OPERATIONS ACTiIURIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act (25-8-101 et. seq. CRS, 1973 as amended), operations engaged in construction dewatering of ground waters (excluding mine dewatering activities) are authorized to discharge from approved locations throughout the state of Colorado to specified waters of the state. Such discharges shall he in accordance with the conditions of this permit. This permit specifically authorizes Storm King Mining to discharge from facilities identified as the twin rock tunnels to an unnamed tributary to the Colorado River as of this date This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, September 30, 1988 Signed this�J day o ei))L 1 � (c '3 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ^ l fr% _ 6> •� L �G/,•i /-4 Ga y/.toetzmalf;, Director Water Quality Control Division This facility permit contains 21 pages. GENERAi.K I Rill CERTt3"twn 12:1-1.,„:11 t'!O.3lCL DATE CERT 3VIE%),,� `. 7:,, Y, C . PART I Page 2 Permit No.: COG -070000 A. COVERAGE UNDER THIS PERMIT 1. In order to be considered eligible for authorization to discharge under the terms and conditions of this permit, the owner, operator, and/or authorized agent of any facility engaged in construction dewatering and desiring to discharge must submit a completed application form obtained from the Water Quality Control Division. Such application shall be submitted at least thirty (30) days prior to the anticipated date of first discharge to: Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, CO 80220 Telephone: (303)+320-8333 U.S. EPA 1860 Lincoln Street, Suite 103 Denver, CO 80295 Water Management Division Permits Section Telephone: (303)+837-4901 The Division shall have up to thirty (30) days after receipt of the application to request additional information and/or deny the authorization for any discharge in accordance with discharge permit regulations 6.10.2. If additional information is requested from the applicant by the Division, the Division shall have fifteen (15) days from receipt of the additional information to review the adequacy of the additional information. If the Division fails to act within thirty (30) days after receipt of the general permit application, the activity shall be approved under the general permit. Division approval shall be site specific and not transferable to alternative locations. The permit issuing authority may waive, at its discretion, the requirement for application submission thirty (30) days prior to initiation of a discharge. If the permit issuing authority determines that the operation does not fall under the authority of the general permit, then the information received will be treated as an individual permit. Discharge is not allowed until 180 days after the application has been received. The Division must evaluate this general permit once every five (5) years, and thus this general permit will expire on September 30, 1988. Following evaluation and appropriate modification, a general permit will be reissued, consistent with public notice requirements. Facilities authorized to discharge under this current permit will be reviewed for reauthorization to discharge under the reissued permit. Reauthorization may be withheld for permittee's failing to comply with any condition of this general permit or for facilities where significant change has occurred and the general permit is no longer applicable to the activity. An individual permit will be required for any facility not reauthorized to discharge under the reissued permit. For facilities wishing to terminate authorization under the new permit, provisions of Part II. B. 13 will be appropriate. PART I Page 3 Permit No.: COG -070000 A. COVERAGE UNDER THIS PERMIT (CONT'D.) 2. This permit does not constitute authorization under 33 U.S.C. 1344 (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) of any stream dredging or filling operations. In order to be considered eligible for authorization to discharge under the terms and conditions of this permit, the owner, operator, and/or authorized agent of any facility desiring to discharge must submit, by certified letter, the discharge application form, available from the Water Quality Control Division, which generally requires the following information: 1. Name, address, and descriptive location of the facility; 2. Name of principal in charge of operation of the facility; 3. Name of water(s) receiving the discharge(s); 4. Description of the type of activity resulting in the discharge including the anticipated duration of activity and/or the discharge, anticipated volume, and rate of discharge, and the source of water which is to be discharged; 5. Description of any waste water treatment system and recycle/reuse utilized; and, 6. A map or schematic diagram showing the general area and/or routing of the activity. 7. Analysis of the water to be discharged. 8. Storage of petroleum or chemicals on site. B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS 1. There shall be no discharge of any process generated waste waters except those waste waters resulting from dewatering of groundwater and/or surface runoff from construction sites. 2. There shall be no discharge of sanitary waste waters from toilets or related facilities. 3. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. • • PART I Page 4 Permit No.: COG -070000 B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS (CONT'D.) 4. No chemicals are to be added to the discharge unless permission for the use of a specific chemical is granted by the Division. In granting the use of such chemicals, additional limitations and monitoring requirements may be imposed or an individual permit may be required. 5. Bulk storage structures for petroleum products and other chemicals shall have adequate protection so as to contain all spills and prevent the material from entering discharged waters or waters of the State. Additional requirements are set forth in Section 311 of the Federal Clean Water Act. 6. The pH of discharged water shall not be less than 6.5 nor more than 9.0 units. 7. The concentration of Oil and Grease in any single sample shall not exceed 10 mg/1 nor shall there by any visible sheen in the discharge. 8. Total Suspended Solids shall be limited as follows: Parameter 30 -Day Average a/ 7 -Day Average b/ Daily Maximum c/ Limitation 'Limitation Limitation Total Suspended Solids mg/1 30 45 60 a/ This limitation shall be determined by the arithmetic mean of a minimum of three (3) samples (grab or composite) taken on separate weeks in a 30 -day period (minimum total of three (3) samples). b/ This limitation shall be determined by the arithmetic mean of a minimum of three (3) samples (grab or composite) taken on separate days in a 7 -day period (minimum total of three (3) samples). c/ This limitation shall be determined by a single grab sample. B. • • PART I Page 5 Permit No.: COG -070000 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS (CONT'D.) 9. Salinity monitoring will be required for the facilities discharging in the Colorado River Basin. Each individual facility's certification rationale will state whether or not salinity monitoring is required. C. MONITORING AND REPORTING 1. Daily Logs The permittee shall maintain a daily log relating to discharge(s). The log shall contain: a. b. c. d. the authorized flow information and data; sample results; and, records of any visual observations. additional information as required on page 7, Part I.C.7. Recording of Results 2. Frequency and Type of Sampling In order to obtain an indication of the probable compliance or noncompliance with the effluent limitations specified in Part I, the permittee shall monitor all effluent parameters at the following required frequencies. Effluent Parameter Flow (MGD) Total Suspended Solids (mg/1) Oil and Grease (mg/1) pH (s.u.) Salinity h/ i/ Measurement Frequency d/ Sample Type f/ Weekly Twice Monthly e/ Weekly Monthly Quarterly Instantaneous or Continuous Grab Visual or Grab Grab Grab Self-monitoring samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the point of discharge prior to entering waters of the State. d/ Monitoring discharge" frequency. is required only during periods of discharge. If "no occurs, this shall be reported at the specified (See Part C.4.) e/ TSS samples shall be collected on separate weeks during the same month. f/ See definitions, Part C.S. • • PART I Page 6 Permit No.: COG -070000 C. MONITORING AND REPORTING (CONT'D.). Should a visible sheen of oil be observed, a sample shall be collected and analyzed plus immediate action shall be taken to correct the problem. h/ Salinity monitoring is only required for facilities discharging in the Colorado River Basin. Salinity shall be measured as Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) or electrical conductivity where a satisfactory correlation with TDS has been approved by the Division based upon a minimum of five (5) samples. i/ Salinity shall be sampled on a monthly basis until six samples have been analyzed. Thereafter, monitoring shall be on a quarterly basis during March, June, September, and December, if a continual discharge occurs. If the discharge is intermittent, then samples shall be collected during the period that discharge occurs. 3. Representative Sampling Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge. 4. Reporting Monitoring results for each one year period (July 1 -June 30) shall be due by the 28th of the month following the reporting period. Final reports shall be submitted for the period from July 1 until termination of discharge and shall be marked as "final report". Results shall be summarized and reporting on applicable discharge monitoring report forms (EPA Form 3320-1), postmarked no later than the due date. If no discharge occurred during the reporting period "No Discharge" shall be reported. Duplicate signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator and the State at the following addresses: Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division Permits and Enforcement Section 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, CO 80295 U.S. EPA Water Management Division 1860 Lincoln Street, Suite 103 Denver, CO 80220 Attn: Enforcement -Permit Program Failure to submit the reports shall constitute a violation of the permit and grounds for revocation of the permittee's certification to discharge under this permit. • • PART I Page 7 Permit No.: COG -070000 C. MONITORING AND REPORTING (CONT'D.). 5. Definitions a/ A "composite" sample, for monitoring requirements, is defined as a minimum of four (4) grab samples collected at equally spaced two (2) hour intervals and proportioned according to flow. b/ A "grab" sample, for monitoring requirements, is defined as a single "dip and take" sample collected at a representative point in the discharge stream. c/ An "instantaneous" measurement, for monitoring requirements, is defined as a single reading, observation, or measurement. d/ A "continuous" measurement, for flow monitoring requirements, is defined as using an automatic recording device to continually measure flow. e/ A "visual" observation, for oil and grease monitoring requirements, is defined as observing the discharge to check for the presence of a visible sheen or floating oil. If either of these is present, a grab sample shall be taken and analyzed, and corrective measures taken immediately to correct the situation. 6. Test Procedures Test Procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to regulations published pursuant to Section 304 (h) of the Act, and Colorado State Effluent Limitations (10.1.5), under which such procedures may be required. 7. Recording of Results For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the permittee shall record the following information: a. The exact place, date, and time of sampling; b. The dates the analyses were performed; c. The person(s) who performed the analyses; d. The analytical techniques or methods used; and e. The results of all required analyses. 8. Reporting Requirements a. The permittee shall provide immediate notification of the occurrence of any discharge of spill not specifically authorized by the permit. • • PART I Page 8 Permit No.: COG -070000 C. MONITORING AND REPORTING (CONT'D.) 8. Reporting Requirements (Cont'd.) b. Notification shall be provided to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Water Quality Control Division; addresses identified in Part I, A. of this permit. 9. Records Retention All records and information resulting from the monitoring activities required by this permit including all analyses performed and calibration and maintenance of instrumentation and recordings from continuous monitoring instrumentation shall be retained for a minimum of three (3) years, or longer, if requested by the Regional Administrator or the Water Quality Control Division. 10. Additional Monitoring by Permittee If the permittee monitors any pollutant at the location(s) designated herein more frequently than required by this permit, using approved analytical methods as specified above, the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the values required in the Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1), or other forms as required by the Division. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated. PART II Page 9 Permit No.: COG -070000 A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 1. Change in Discharge All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or at a level in excess of that authorized shall constitute a violation of the permit. Any anticipated change in discharge location, or modifications which will result in new, different, or increased discharges or pollutants must be reported by submission of a new CDPS application or, if such changes will not violate the effluent limitations specified in this permit, by notice to the State Water Quality Control Division of such changes. Process modifications include, but are not limited to, the introduction of any new pollutant not previously identified in the permit, or any other modifications which may result in a discharge of a quantity or quality different from that which was applied for. Following such notice, the permit may be modified or an individual permit may be required. 2. Noncompliance (A) Definitions (1) Bypass: The intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility. (2) Severe Property Damage: Substantial physical damage to property, to the treatment facilities to cause them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. It does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. (B) Notification (1) If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with any discharge limitations or standards specified in this permit, the permittee shall, at a minimum, submit in writing to the Water Quality Control Division and EPA with the following information; within five days of becoming aware of such condition: a) The results of any sample analysis which indicated the noncompliance including the date, time and type of sample taken; 1 • PART II Permit No.: COG -070000 Page 10 A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS (CONT'D.) 2. Noncompliance (Cont'd.) (B) Notification (Cont'd.) b) A description of the cause of noncompliance; and, c) A description of any corrective actions taken or proposed to be taken with respect to the noncompliance. (2) The following instances of noncompliance shall be reported orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances, and a written report mailed within five days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances: (3) a) Any instance of noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment; b) Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit; c) Daily maximum violations for any toxic pollutants or hazardous substances limited in PART I of this permit. Reports shall be addressed to the Permits and Enforcement Section of the Water Quality Control Division, telephone number 320-8333, extension 3740. The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported in "Notification", paragraph 2-(b)-(2) (above), at the time discharge monitoring reports are submitted (EPA Form 3320-1). The reports shall contain the information listed in "Notification", paragraph 2-(B)-(1) (above). (4) When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or report to the Division, it shall promptly submit such facts or information. • • PART II Permit No.: COG -070000 Page 11 A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS (CONT'D.) 2. Noncompliance (Cont'd.) (C) Bypass (1) The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. No Division notification is required, and this case is not subject to the requirements in paragraphs 2-(C)-(2) through 2-(C)-(4), (below). (2) If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit notice, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass, to the Division and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bypass shall be subject to Division approval, and limitations imposed by the Division and EPA. (3) For an unanticipated bypass, see the requirements listed in "Notification", paragraph 2-(B)-(2), (above). (4) Bypass is prohibited, and the Division may take enforcement action against a permittee for bypass, unless: a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; b) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if the permittee could have installed adequate backup equipment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventative maintenance; and c) The permittee submitted notices as required in "Notification", paragraph 2-(B) (above). 3. Removed Substances Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering waters of the State. • PART II Permit No.: COG -070000 Page 12 A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS (CONT' D . ) 4. Facilities Operation The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order and operate as efficiently as possible all treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. 5. Adverse Impact The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact to waters of the State resulting from noncompliance with any effluent limitations specified in this permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge. 6. Any discharge to the waters of the State from a point source other than specifically authorized is prohibited. 7. Reduction, Loss, or Failure of Treatment Facility (A) The permittee shall, to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with its permit, control production, or all discharges, or both until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. (B) .This provision also applies to power failures, unless an alternative power source sufficient to operate the wastewater control facilities is provided. 1 • PART II Page 13 Permit No.: COG -070000 B. RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Right to Entry The permittee shall allow the Director of the State Water Quality Control Division, the EPA Regional Administrator, and/or their authorized representative, upon the presentation of credentials; (A) To enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or in which any records are required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; (B) At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit and to inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required in the permit; and (C) To enter upon the permittee's premises to reasonably investigate any actual, suspected, or potential source of water pollution, or any violation of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. The investigation may include, but is not limited to, the following: sampling of any discharge and/or process waters, the taking of photographs, interviewing of any persons having any knowledge related to the discharge permit, or alleged violation, and access to any and all facilities or areas within the permittee's premises that may have any affect on the discharge, permit, or alleged violation. 2. Duty to Provide Information The permittee shall furnish to the Division, within a reasonable time, any information which the Division may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with this permit. 3. Transfer of Ownership or Control In the event of any change in control or ownership of facilities from which the authorized discharges emanate, the permittee shall notify the succeeding owner or controller of the existence of this permit by letter, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the Regional Administrator and the State Water Quality Control Division. • • PART II Page 14 Permit No.: COG -070000 B. RESPONSIBILITIES (CONT'D.) 4. Availability of Reports Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and Regulations for the State Discharge Permit System 6.1.8, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the State Water Quality Control Division and the Regional Administrator. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly making any false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties as provided for in Section 309 of the Act, and Section 25-8-610 C.R.S. 1973 as amended. 5. Permit Modification After notice and opportunity for a hearing, a permittee's certification to operate under this general permit may be modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in part during its term for cause including, but not limited to, the following: (A) Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit; (B) Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; (C) A change in any condition which results in a temporary or permanent reduction, elimination, addition or increase of the permitted discharge. (D) Changes in Water Quality Standards, control regulation or duly promulgated plans would qualify as "a change in any condition." (E) This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to comply with any applicable effluent standard or limitation issued or approved under sections 301(b)(2)(C), and (D), 304(b)(2), and 307(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act, if the effluent standard or limitation so issued or approved: (1) Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent that any efflunt limitation in the permit; or (2) Controls any pollutant not limited in the permit. The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also contain any other requirements of the Act then applicable. -o r- • • PART II Page 15 Permit No.: COG -070000 B. RESPONSIBILITIES (CONT'D.) 5. Permit Modification (F) Changes in water quality standards, control regulations or duly promulgated plans. 6. Toxic Pollutants Notwithstanding "Permit Modifications", paragraph B-5 (above), if a toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is established under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for a toxic pollutant which is present in the discharge and such standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation for such pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be revised or modified in accordance with the toxic effliuent standard or prohibition and the permittee so notified. 7. Civil and Criminal Liability Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (A -2-(C)) and "Reduction, Loss, or Failure of Treatment Facility", (A-7), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from civil or criminal; penalties for noncompliance. (See Fed. Reg. Vol. 45, No. 98, 122.60). 8. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal actions or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. 9. State Laws Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities., liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable State law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 of the Clean Water Act. 10. Permit Violations Failure to comply with any terms and/or conditions of this permit shall be a violation of this permit. • PART Page 16 Permit No.: COG -070000 B. RESPONSIBILITIES (CONT'D.) 11. Property Rights The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to provate property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations. 12. Severability The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provisions of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit shall not be affected thereby. inate 13. At the request of a permittee, the Division themay followingrconditions a certification under this generalpermit are met: (A) The Regional Administrator has been notified of the proposed modification or termination, and does not object in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of notification; and (B) The Division finds that the permittee has shown reasonable grounds consistent with modificationFederal orand terminationatands, and regulations for such (C) Requirements of public notice have been met. The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or aoeotificas not tionay a fy permit planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, condition. 14. It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would be necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of the permit. 15. Signatory Requirement All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Division shall be signed and certified. • • PART II Page 17 Permit No.: COG -070000 B. RESPONSIBILITIES (CONT'D.) 16. Requiring an Individual CDPS Permit The Director may require any owner or operator covered under this permit to apply for and obtain an individual CDPS permit if: a. The discharger is not in compliance with the conditions of this General Permit; or, b. Conditions or standards have changed so that the discharge no longer qualifies for a General Permit. The owner or operator must be notified in writing that an application for an individual CDPS permit is required. When an individual CDPS permit is issued to an owner or operator otherwise covered under this General Permit, the applicability of the General Permit to that owner or operator is automatically terminated upon the effective date of the individual CDPS permit. 17. Requesting an Individual CDPS Permit Any owner or operator covered by this General Permit may request to be excluded from the coverage by applying for an individual CDPS Permit. 18. Requesting Coverage Under the General Permit The owner or operator of a facility excluded from coverage by this General Permit solely because that facility already has an individual permit may request that the individual permit be revoked and that the facility be covered by this General Permit. Upon revocation of the individual permit, this General Permit shall apply to that facility. • • PART III Page 18 Permit No. COG -070000 A. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Facility Certification Beyond Permit Expiration Date The Division shall evaluate the general permit once every five (5) years prior to the expiration date. At the time of reissuance of the permit, all facility certifications will be reviewed and renewed if appropriate. Permittees will not be required to reapply. Recertification may be withheld for a permittee's failure to comply with any permit condition or where significant change has occurred at the facility causing it to become ineligible for the general permit. An individual permit will be required for any facility not recertified under the revised general permit. 2. Within sixty (60) days of receipt of authorization to discharge under this permit, the permittee shall file a statement with the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Quality Control Division which shall contain the names of the person or persons who are designated to report conditions as noted in "Noncompliance", PART II, Section A, Paragraph 2, and as referenced in "Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability", PART II, Section B, Paragraph 8. The permittee shall continually update this list as changes occur at the facility. 3. Within three (3) months after receipt of authorization to discharge under this permit, either a flow -measuring device shall be installed at all discharge points, or the permittee shall have requested and received from the Permits and Enforcement Section, permission to use an alternative method for determining flows at all discharge points. At the request of the Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Director of the State Water Quality Control Division or their authorized representatives, the permittee must be able to show proof of the accuracy of any flow -measuring device used in obtaining data submitted in the monitoring report. The flow -measuring device must indicate values within ten (10) percent of the actual flow being discharged from the facility. 4. Discharge points shall be so designed or modified that a sample of the effluent can be obtained at a point after the final treatment process and prior to discharge to state waters. 5. Permit Fees The permittee is required to submit an annual fee as set forth in the 1983 amendments to the Water Quality Control Act, Section 25-8-502 (1) (b), and State Discharge Permit Regulations 5CCR 1002-2, Section 6.16.0 as amended. Failure to submit the required fee when due and payable is a violation of the permit and will result in enforcement action pursuant to Section 25-8-601 et. seq., C.R.S. 1973 as amended." PART III Page 19 Permit No. COG -070000 6. Upon final termination of all discharges to state waters, the permittee may request in writing to the Division that authorization to discharge under the general permit be inactivated. Upon verification by the Division that a discharge no longer exists and that a permit is no longer required, the certification can be inactivated by the Division with written notification to the permittee. Until such time that the Division inactivates the permittee's responsibility under the general permit, the permittee is required to pay permit fees as referenced in 6.16.2 of the permit regulations. • • J ` • CI t'Ah.L i i- L Page 20 Facility No. COG -070012 -�•,��y - �..... !i. `v��-':L' ,i. _ r_ �I r :� 9950 .,. �� (�..�,.,, I' _ 6• A Ranch ° u L! c n• (..,--•..%,2•-c,,, i�/ /4 T?' i / rx7 \: -. ?f�J;....: ' � _ L,,,,.:% //ty`•.bbl,,i•-./'t.•'•,',-i CZr� r . 0,1 0'. r• ti 1 Town of New Caste f 7ti i Town of. w-Tag:tie Waste Treatment Plant �--- I t J� Ifvtine'F'ort�Ll $ (� SLFrfa�e Fagiliki \...L 'e it yl�i,11 06AATER Pf 7r� 9' e Gdd,,,h Cn Alts filler' r Me a ;Substotmi. {� r•�t n of Silt Water Ir►ta wage Treatment'Plari. • .lilt" • . t • M ' • 8Ajb • M6r>7tt Tibr�IAL_f1R Ft� ''e rMJUNrAn •a►^+ r . •s ' •i a GA rf WHITE RIVER r7t%�O/74 FIGURE 1 GENERAL LOCATION MAP STORM KING MINES TUNNEL DEWATERING • r 0 I .l • •-;7L'_'bZGsSBT•11L • 1 Fl M c ,\_ rl AGR)CU toot Lu rA 5 miles ,9rt Hybl 9 NATIONA abni \411.,” Ir e Storm King Mines Denver, Colorndo COAL RIDGE NO. LOCATION MAP SHOWING 5 MN E RADIUS Vete' Sept., 1984 scot.' 1:250,000 • PART 1. Page 21 Facility No. COG -070012 • — FIGURE 2 DISCHARGE AND SAMPLING POINT LOCATION r • • CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING OPERATIONS IN COLORADO GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGE RATIONALE COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT NUMBER: COG -070000 Excavation dewatering in conjunction with construction activities often results in temporary discharges to waters of the United States. These discharges are subject to the requirements 25-8-101 et. seq., CRS, 1973 as amended. Obtaining a discharge permit may be essential to the construction activity and its scheduling. Administrative delays in the issuance of a permit might significantly impact the timing and cost of a project. Situations have arisen in the past where permit processing delays, or anticipation of delays, have resulted in applicants discharging prior to receipt of authorization. The intent of a General Permit for construction dewatering is to facilitate the scheduling of these activities by reducing the administrative delays in their authorization, to establish a uniform criteria for management practices and effluent limitations for discharges from these activities, and promote a consistent permitting and enforcement posture with respect to these activities. The General Permit regulations provide for the issuance of General Permits where covered facilities: 1. are involved in substantially the same type of operations; 2. discharge the same type of waste; 3. require the same effluent limitations or operating conditions; 4. require similar monitoring; and, 5. are more appropriately controlled under a General permit than individual permits. Applicability This category, "construction dewatering", will include dewatering from building construction, general construction, highway, bridge and tunnel construction, among others considered appropriate by the Division. The dewatering associated with this construction activity will be relatively short-term and will not include any pollutants other than those which normal physical disturbance, pumping, or construction activity might create. Overburden removal is not considered a construction activity. The Division retains the authority to individually permit facilities determined to be in noncompliance with the conditions of this General Permit or not qualifying for a General Permit. (see PART II, B. 5, page 13 of the permit) • • RATIONALE - Page 2 Permit No: COG -070000 Coverage Under This Permit An applicant wishing to discharge under the general permit must first supply background information on the activity. The permit provides thirty (30) days for the Division to deny discharge authorization or request additional information. This permit does not constitute authorization under the provisions of 33 U.S.C. 1344 (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), of any stream dredging or filling operations. The following list shows some of the criteria under which an individual permit may be required instead of a general permit. 1. Proximity of the operation to a landfill or mine and mill tailings; 2. Evidence of non-compliance under a previous permit for the operation; 3. Presence of downstream drinking water intakes; 4. Preservation of high quality water; 5. Addition of flocculants (settling agents or chemical additives) to water prior to discharge. 6. The use of land application as a means of discharge. 7. The bulk storage or use of chemicals on site that could be discharged through the construction dewatering operation. Permit Rationale The owner, operator and/or authorized agent for a facility desiring to discharge shall submit an application as provided by the Water Quality Control Division. This application will be evaluated. If the general permit is applicable to the operation, then a rationale will be developed and the facility will be certified under the general permit. • • RATIONALE - Page 3 Permit No: COG -070000 The certification rationale shall include at a minimum the name and address of the contact person, a discussion of compliance under the previous permit, if applicable, the receiving water for the discharge, number of discharge points, a determination of the need for salinity monitoring and the expiration date of the general permit certification for the specific facility. If after evaluation of the application, it is found that the general permit is not applicable to the operation, then the application will be processed as an individual permit. For an individual permit, up to 180 days will be required to process the application and issue the permit. In this case discharge cannot take place until the permit is issued and becomes effective. The general permit itself will contain the effluent limitations and the monitoring requirements for the permitted discharge points. The following text details the rationale for the conditions of the general permit. Effluent Limitations Criteria The following table presents a comparison of effluent limitations based upon State Effluent Standards (SES) and Water Quality Standards (WQS): SES WQS Total Suspended Solids, mg/1 30/45 Oil and Grease, mg/1 10 pH, s.u. 6.0-9.0 Salinity 6.5-9.0 Effluent limitations in the general permit are based on the selection of the most stringent limitations presented in the above table. The Permit Conditions section that follows discusses the limitations for each parameter. Permit Conditions The principal pollutants of concern in construction dewatering are: 1. Sediments (Total Suspended Solids); 2. Oil and Grease (from pumps or extraneous sources); and, 3. Added flocculents or chemicals to assist in settling. • • RATIONALE - Page 4 Permit No: COG -070000 Total Suspended Solids In the absence of promulgated Federal BAT, BCT or BPT limitations, the State is required to place State Effluent Limitations in this permit. For TSS these limitations are 30 mg/1 for a 30 day average and 45 mg/1 for the 7 day average limitation. It should be pointed out that operations covered under this permit primarily control runoff in a manner similar to sand and gravel, and coal mining operations. Settling of suspended material would be rapid and much like disturbed ground water associated with a sand and gravel operation. The Division has found general compliance with the 30/45 TSS limitations for sand and gravel mining facilities which are properly operated. Data are available for two construction dewatering operations. These data show the following: Arithmetic Mean 30 -Day Average Daily Maximum 5.98 36.18 Thus, it appears that TSS limits of 30/45 are appropriate. With the limited data available, the application of more stringent limits is inappropriate. For the purpose of facilitating compliance monitoring activities, a daily maximum limitation of 60 mg/1 has been set. Monitoring shall be specified as twice monthly. This should be adequate to protect water quality. Oil and Grease Oil and Grease may be present in the discharge as the result of pump lubricant contamination or contaminated extraneous runoff entering the discharge. A limitation of 10 mg/1 for Oil and Grease is recommended based on the Colorado Regulations for Effluent Limitations. This level can generally be attained by conventional oil skimming methods or a submerged overflow. Further, at 10 mg/1 of Oil and Grease a visible sheen normally becomes evident. Monitoring shall be weekly for Oil and Grease. The pH range of 6.5-9.0 for state water quality standards (WQS) is the effluent limitation appropriate for this permit. Though some stream segments in the state have a WQS of 6.0-9.0, a sufficient number of streams have the more stringent limitation of 6.5-9.0 thus warranting imposition of this limitation. Waters normally encountered are at a pH of 7.0-8.0. Natural surface and groundwaters in a few locations in the state will not be within these limits and a facility at such a location will very likely be considered an abnormal operation and therefore required to obtain an individual -permit. Flow Flow monitoring will be required under this permit. Flow volumes will be • • RATIONALE - Page 5 Permit No: COG -070000 determined by pump rate or other methods that the Division finds acceptable. The frequency of flow monitoring is discussed in the body of the permit. There will be no limitation on the flow volume discharged under the general permit. Flocculants Because of a wide variety of available chemical flocculants, the use of such settling aids must be subject to prior approval by the permit issuing authority. However, since lime and alum are the most frequently used aids for settling and typically their use results in no significant effect on other pollutant parameters, permission for their use will not be required. Salinity Salinity, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is an issue in the Colorado River Basin which warrants some discussion. Regulation 3.10.0, Regulations for Implementation of the Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the Colorado Discharge Permit Program addresses the discharge of salinity to the Colorado River Basin. It is a requirement of the regulation that the salinity of each discharge in the Colorado River Basin be evaluated for impact on the system. Generally, the net impact on salinity to the basin from construction dewatering is negligible because the waters are typically shallow groundwaters which eventually reach the river. Nonetheless, the state reserves the right to refuse the applicability under the general discharge permit of any construction dewatering operation, if it appears that the discharge will not be consistent with regulations. Additionally, quarterly monitoring for salinity will be a permit requirement for all facilities located in the Colorado River Basin. Should the data identify a problem, the state will have the right to require the facility to obtain an individual permit, whereby a study addressing the economic feasibility of salt removal can be required. The certification rationale that accompanies the permit shall include the Division's determination of whether or not salinity monitoring is required. Monitoring Requirements Monitoring will be required of each activity resulting in a discharge. The monitoring frequencies are stated on page 5 of the permit. Because most discharges are of short duration, frequent monitoring is necessary to determine changes in the quality of the discharge. Spill Containment As most facilities provide bulk storage of some volume of petroleum products or other chemicals, the permit will require adequate protection from spills for such facilities so as to prevent loss of these materials into discharged waters. Such protection can take various forms, however diking in most cases will prove to be the most cost effective. This provision is required as the Division interprets proper operation, as properly addressing potential pollutant sources before problems occur. RATIONALE - Page 6 Permit No: COG -070000 Spill Containment (Continued) Reports will only be required in cases of noncompliance with permit conditions. The permittee will, however, be required to maintain its records for a period of three (3) years. Such records will be subject to inspection by EPA and/or the Water Quality Control Division. Reporting Requirements The results of sample monitoring shall be reported once each year to the Division as discussed in Part I C (4) of the permit. Should the effluent contain concentrations of any parameter in excess of permit limitations, the permittee shall notify the Division within 5 days of becoming aware of the situation. The permittee shall immediately notify the Division of the occurrence of any discharge or spill not covered by the conditions of the permit. Permit Duration The permit shall not exceed five years in duration. Other Conditions The permittee may add or move discharge points under the authority of the general permit so long as the discharge points are associated with the same construction site and go to the same receiving stream. Should the permittee wish to discharge into a different stream, a request for a permit modification will be required. Should the permittee wish to discharge from another construction site, a new application will have to be submitted to the Division. • • RATIONALE - Page 7 Permit No: COG -070000 Special Comment Most construction activities are performed in a reasonably limited area. Certain activities however cover significant areas of land i.e. sewer line construction, stream rechanneling, etc. Past and present land use can be extremely varied along the route i.e. landfills, old lagoons, etc. and may severely impact the local groundwater quality. Though the discharges are of short duration, volumes can be extremely high and of low quality. Additionally, the Division's experience has been that contractors must begin construction shortly after the contracts have been let, which in turn leaves insufficient time for collection of necessary data and permit issuance. Barring poor quality groundwater, these activities fit well into this general permit category. To accommodate these types of activities a specialized application approach is in order as follows: 1) Permit application should be by the facility owner. A transfer of the permit to the contractor can then be accomplished, if they are to be the responsible party. 2) A pre -application conference with the Division is essential. This will allow the Division an opportunity to identify special data which will be necessary for a complete application. Special data in general will consist of groundwater analysis for COD and specific conductivity at specified distances throughout the activity area, possibly every 300 feet. Should generated data identify problem areas, either the entire activity will require an individual permit which takes 180 days to obtain, or the problem segments will be excluded from certification under the general permit. Jon C. Kubic Donald H. Simpson March 18, 1983 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 CERTIFICATION STORM KING MINES Twin Park Tunnel Construction PERMIT NUMBER COG -070012 GARFIELD COUNTY FACILITY TYPE: Industrial SIC NO.: 1112 LOCATION: The NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 6 T6S, R9OW approximately 10 miles west of Glenwood Springs, Colorado LEGAL AND LOCAL CONTACT: E. Peter Matthies President Storm King Mines 9137 E. Mineral Circle Englewood, CO 80112 (303)+792-2625 RECEIVING WATERS: Unnamed tributary to the Colorado River SUB -BASIN, SEGMENT: Segment 4, Lower Colorado River Basin CLASSIFICATION: Recreational, Class 2 Aquatic Life, Class 2 (Cold) Agricultural Use Q7-10 (Stream low -flow): Not Applicable DESIGN FLOW: 110 gpm is the expected average flow f • COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division Rationale - Page 2 Permit No: C0-070012 FACILITY DESCRIPTION: Storm King Mines is planning to construct twin rock tunnels to provide access to the coal sources of the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. This activity is scheduled to begin about January 1, 1985 and proceed from a 6 to 10 month period. The location of this constauction is show in Figure 1. This discharge permit will be confined to the discharge of effluent from the tunnel dewatering activity. This permit is not applicable to mining related discharges. Discharge shall take place from the outfall of sediment pond A, as shown in Figure 2. It is anticipated that much of the water will be held in storage or used consumptively for other activities. Fuel will be stored on site. An SPCC plan wwill not be required but diking should be performed as discussed on Page 5 of the rationale and Page 5 of the permit (Part 1 B 8). The permittee is encouraged to read the general rationale for an understanding of how this permit was developed. Specifically, Pages 4 and 5 of the rationale discuss effluent limitations and monitoring requrements. Within the body of the permit itself, monitoring requirements are specified on Page 5. Salinity monitoring of the Storm King Mining Facility's discharges will be required on a quarterly basis since it is in the Colorado River basin. Based on the above information, the Storm King Mining facility is certified to discharge under the general permit for construction dewatering operations identified as permit number COG -070012. All correspondence relating to the Storm King Mine Tunnel should reference facility number COG -070000. Donald H. Simpson September 17, 1984 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 FACILITY TYPE: SIC NO.: LOCATION: LEGAL AND LOCAL CONTACT: RECEIVING WATERS: SUB -BASIN, SEGMENT: CLASSIFICATION: Q7-10 (Stream low -flow): DESIGN FLOW: CERTIFICATION STORM KING MINES Twin Park Tunnel construction PERMIT NO: COG -070012 GARFIELD COUNTY Industrial 1112 The NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec., 6 T6S, R9OW, approximately 10 miles west of Glenwood Springs, Colorado E. Peter Matthies President Storm King Mines 9137 E. Mineral Circle Englewood, CO 80112 (303)+792-2625 Unnamed tributary to the Colorado River Segment 4, Lower Colorado River Basin Recreational, Class 2 Aquatic Life, Class 2 (Cold) Agricultural Use Not Applicable 110 gpm is the expected average flow • COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division Rationale - Page 2 Permit No. COG -070012 FACILITY DESCRIPTION: Storm King Mines is planning to construct twin rock tunnels to provide access to the coal sources of the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. This activity is scheduled to begin about January 1, 1985 and proceed for a 6 to 10 month period. The location of this construction is shown in Figure 1. This discharge permit will be confined to the discharge of effluent from the tunnel dewatering activity. This permit is not applicable to mining related discharges. Discharge shall take place from the outfall of sediment pond A, as shown in Figure 2. It is anticipated that much of the water will be held in storage or used comsumptively for other activities. Fuel will be stored on site. An SPCC plan will not be required but diking should be performed as discussed on Page 5 of the rationale and Page 5 of the permit (Part I.B.8.). The permittee is encouraged to read the general rationale for an understanding of how this permit was developed. Specifically, Pages 4 and 5 of the rationale discuss effluent limitations and monitoring requirements. Within the body of the permit itself, monitoring requirements are specified on Page 5. Salinity monitoring of the Storm King Mining Facility's discharges will be required on a quarterly basis since it is in the Colorado river basin. Based on the above information, the Storm King Mining facility is certified to discharge under the general permit for construction dewatering operations identified as permit number COG -070000. All correspondence relating to the Storm King Mine Tunnel should reference facility number COG -070012. Donald H. Simpson September 17, 1984 Richard D. Lamm Governor 1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES David H. Getches, Executive Director MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION DAVIDC. SHELTON, Director October 3, 1984 Mr. E. Peter Matthies Storm King Mines, Inc. 9137 E. Mineral Circle Englewood, CO 80112 RE: Coal Ridge No. 1 Draft Findings File No. C-84-065 Dear Mr. Matthies: Enclosed is the Division's draft findings concerning the Coal Ridge No. 1 permit application. In most cases, the Division was able to make the findings required for each section of this document. In some cases, the findings are made with proposed stipulations. In those sections where the Division could not make the required findings, the information necessary for approval is detailed. Please address as many of the stipulations as possible, because a large number of stipulations becomes cumbersome for both Storm King and the Division. Following permit approval, the information requested in those sections where findings are not made must be submitted before the Division can propose a decision to approve the application. Please note that this draft findings document is somewhat abbreviated from what the final findings document will be. Section VII, which is the statement of probable hydrologic consequences an the cumulative hydrologic analysis, is not included in this document. The Division is currently working on those portions of this section that can be presently completed. This section requires more information as detailed in the surface water section before the Division can complete it. This section will be available for your review in the final draft. 423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 • • Mr. E. Peter Matthies October 3, 1984 Page 2 It is suggested that, once you have completed a review of this document, we have a meeting. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. S',ncerely, Jim erron, Reclamation Specialist JH/mad cc: Mr. Richard L Fanyo Doc. No. 4519F • • Legal, Financial and Compliance Information - Rule 2.03 Legal, financial and compliance information reviewed by the Division can be found in Section 2 of Volume I of the permit application. Copies of the leases and warranty deed applying to the proposed operation, which are kept in a confidential file, were also reviewed. Based on that information, the Division makes the following findings. Based on the coal leases and warranty deed in the confidential file, the Division finds, pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(f), that Storm King Mines, Inc. is in compliance with Rule 2.03.6(2). The coal leases and warranty deed are the documents of conveyance that expressly grant the right to extract coal. Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(g) and on the basis of evidence submitted by the applicant, the Division finds that Storm King Mines, Inc. does not own or control any operations which are currently in violation of any law, rule, or regulation of the United States, or any state law, rule, or regulation, or any provision of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act or the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act. Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(h), and on the basis of evidence submitted by the applicant, the Division finds that Storm King Mines, Inc. does not control and has not controlled mining operations with a demonstrated patter of willful violations of the Act of such nature, duration, and with such resulting irreparable damage to the environment, as to indicate an intent not to comply with provisions of the Act. Storm King Mines, Inc. presently has not obtained legal right of entry for all lands within the proposed permit area. These lands include portions of the railroad right-of-way, the haul road, pipeline right-of-ways, and the entire coal refuse disposal embankment. Most of this land is owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the rest is contained in the Riverbend Subdivision. Storm King is currently pursuing a lease from the Bureau of Land Management and has stated that the Riverbend Subdivision property will be purchased following permit issuance. At present, the Division cannot approve conducting surface coal mining in those areas. The following is necessary for approval: Requirement No. 1 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE HAUL ROAD TO THE COAL PROCESSING WASTE EMBANKMENT, THE RAILROAD, THE SLURRY AND RECLAIM WATER PIPELINES, THE COAL PROCESSING WASTE EMBANKMENT AND ANY OTHER FACILITIES ON THE LANDS WITHIN THE PROPOSED PERMIT AREA WHICH STORM KING MINES DOES NOT OWN OR LEASE, THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS CONVEYING RIGHT -OF -ENTRY WITH A MINOR REVISION REQUEST, AND RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM THE DIVISION . With satisfactory resolution of the above stipulation, the proposed operation will be in compliance with the requirements of this section. 2 II. Land Use - Rules 2.04.3, 2.05.5 and 4.16 The discussion of pre- and post -mining land use in the permit and adjacent areas can be found in Volume I, pages 3-1 through 3-11 and 4-78 of the permit application. Current land uses in and adjacent to the proposed permit area include grazing, wildlife habitat, cropland, residential, developed water resources and undeveloped land. A previous land use of mining is also evident at the site. Currently the largest single land use at the site is undeveloped land. The proposed permit area includes or is within 300 feet of occupied dwellings. The necessary waivers and requirements for operations near these dwellings is addressed in Section I - Legal and Financial Compliance and Section XXV - Operations on Lands Subject to Limitations or Prohibitions. There is some surface disturbance at the site as a result of past mining activities. The last mine within the permit area ceased operations in 1962. If any of these old areas of surface disturbance are re -disturbed by Storm King Mines, Inc., they must be reclaimed to meet the standards of Rule 4.15.10. The applicant proposes to return the disturbed areas to the previous land uses. The applicant has not described to what land use old mining disturbance areas are to be reclaimed. Therefore, the following stipulation is required: Stipulation No. 1 WITHIN 30 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE PERMITTEE MUST PROPOSE A POST -MINING LAND USE FOR AREAS OF OLD MINING DISTURBANCE WHICH ARE TO BE RE -DISTURBED AND RECLAIMED. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A PROPOSAL, THE RECLAMATION STANDARD FOR NEWLY DISTURBED AREAS WILL APPLY. Other post -mining land uses which have been proposed are consistent and compatible with adjacent land use. The Division has determined that based on information and the reclamation plan proposed by the applicant and with the acceptance of stipulations contained in this section and Section XI - Vegetation Information, the achievement of these land uses is feasible. Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(i), the Division hereby approves the post -mining land uses of the proposed operation. It is determined that these uses will meet the requirements of Rule 4.16. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. • • 3 III. Cultural and Historic Resources - Rules 2.04.4 and 2.05.6(4) The applicant has submitted information showing that no cultural or historic resources exist within the permit area on page 3-12 of Volume I. The applicant has not submitted copies of one of the cultural resource surveys which was conducted at the site. Therefore the following stipulation is required: Stipulation No. 2 WITHIN 10 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE PERMITTEE MUST SUBMIT A COPY OF THE NICKENS AND ASSOCIATES 1980 CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY REPORT CITED IN SECTION 3.2 OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION. Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(e), the Division finds that the proposed mining operation will not adversely affect any publicly owned park or place listed on the National Register of Historic Places. With the acceptance of the above stipulation the proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. • • 4 IV. Geology - Rules 2.04.5 and 2.04.6 Descriptions of the geology within the permit and adjacent areas are located in sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 5.1 and 5.2; appendices 3.3-1, 3.3-2, 3.3-3, 3.3-3a, 3.3-3b, 4.2-1 and 4.5-1; and Figures 3.3-2, 3.3-3, 3.3-4, 3.3-5, 3.3-6, 3.3-7, 3.3-8, 3.3-9 and 3.3-10. A detailed description of the geology of the permit and adjacent areas is contained in the Description of the Environment section of this findings document. A description of the geology of the general area is contained in the Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Study and Probably Hydrologic Consequences of Mining section of this finds document. The applicant has supplied sufficient geologic information for the purpose of this review. The applicant is, therefore, in compliance with Rules 2.04.5 and 2.04.6. • 5 V. Hydrologic Balance: Surface Water - Rules 2.04.5, 2.04.7, 2.05.3, 2.05.4 and 4.05 Information on surface water can be found in the permit application in Sections 3.3.7, 4.2.3, 4.2.3, 4.5.3 and 5.1 of Volume I. The information contained in these sections is not sufficient for the Division to predict worst case scenarios for mining related impacts on surface water conditions of the permit, adjacent and general areas of the mine. The following issues must be addressed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Division before a finding of compliance with this section can be made. 1) Figure 4.2-5 of the permit application shows the five year extent of underground mining extending into the South Canyon Creek drainage. The applicant must describe the anticipated impacts of mining to the hydrologic balance of South Canyon Creek. A surface water monitoring plan for South Canyon Creek also must be submitted by the applicant. 2) The applicant must submit flow regime data for the Colorado River sufficient to identify critical low flow and to identify seasonal variations in flow and chemistry. Specifically, flow data must be submitted in connection with the monthly field measurements of chemistry submitted in the application. The following are the findings of compliance which the Division can make at this time: Diversions - Temporary The temporary diversion, Channel A, which drains the undisturbed area above the mine portals has been designed with a slope of.002, or 1.7 inches of drop in 100 linear feet. It seems unlikely that such accuracy can be maintained during construction and it is likely that ponding will occur along the ditch, which will result in excessive saltation. Therefore, the following stipulation is required. Stipulation No. 3 WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE PERMITTEE MUST SUBMIT TO THE DIVISION NEW DESIGNS ALLOWING FOR A GREATER SLOPE ON CHANNEL A TO INSURE FLOW THROUGH THE CHANNEL LENGTH. THE PERMITTEE MUST COMMIT TO INSPECTION OF THE DITCH AFTER RUNOFF EVENTS TO LOCATE AREAS OF EXCESSIVE EROSION. THE PERMITTEE MUST ALSO COMMIT TO APPROPRIATE EROSION PREVENTION IF NEEDED. Stream Channel Diversion The permanent diversion of the ephemeral drainages located above the refuse embankment has been designed with a slope of.001, or .8 inches of drop per 100 linear feet. A slope this low will not ensure proper drainage and will likely require high maintenance to clean the channel of sediment deposition. The Division does not feel this slope meets the requirement of Rule 4.05.4(4) to construct the permanent diversion "with a stable longitudinal profile". Since • • 6 the applicant has not provided right of entry information for the coal refuse disposal area, the Division cannot presently approve this portion of the operation (see Section I of this findings document). The following information is required before the Division can approve this portion of the operation. Requirement No. 2 THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT TO THE DIVISION DESIGNS FOR THE PERMANENT DIVERSIONS OF THE EPHEMERAL DRAINAGES ABOVE THE REFUSE EMBANKMENT, MODIFYING THE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED SLOPE TO MORE CLOSELY APPROXIMATE NATURAL CONDITION AND TO ENSURE PROPER DRAINAGE THROUGH THE AREA. VELOCITIES MUST BE CALCULATED FOR THIS DIVERSION WITH EROSION PREVENTION MEASURES DESIGNED AS NEEDED. THIS INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED AS A REVISION TO THE APPROVED PERMIT APPLICATION. Impoundment Reclamation - Sediment Control Measures The final reclamation plan does not address containment of runoff and sediment from the upstream face of the embankment during the period of time from shutdown of mining operations to the point where the regraded upstream refuse slope meets the revegetation success criteria for removing sediment control. To ensure protection of the hydrologic balance, the following stipulation is required. Stipulation No. 4 WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE PERMITTEE MUST SUBMIT TO THE DIVISION PLANS TO CONTAIN OR CONTROL RUNOFF FROM THE UPSTREAM AREA OF THE REFUSE EMBANKMENT DURING THE FOLLOWING PHASES: 1) AFTER MINING OPERATIONS CEASE AND NO FURTHER WASTE IS BEING DEPOSITED IN THE UPSTREAM AREA OF THE REFUSE EMBANKMENT, THE UNDISTURBED DRAINAGE ABOVE THE WASTE WILL NEED TO BE DIVERTED AWAY FROM THE SLURRY EMBANKMENT. A METHOD OF DEWATERING THE SLURRY SHOULD ALSO BE ADDRESSED. 2) AFTER THE SLURRY HAS DEWATERED TO THE POINT WHERE REGRADING IS FEASIBLE, THE SUBSEQUENT RECLAMATION PHASE WILL REQUIRE CONTAINMENT OF RUNOFF FROM THE SLOPES OF THE REFUSE WITHIN A SEDIMENT POND. CONTROL OF RUNOFF WILL BE REQUIRED UNTIL REVEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA ARE MET. Sedimentation Ponds All runoff from disturbed areas will be routed through one of two sediment ponds. One sediment pond is planned to be constructed to drain the disturbed area of the surface facilities and one sediment pond is planned to be constructed to drain the disturbed area of the coal refuse impoundment. Each sediment pond is designed to contain the runoff from a 10 -year 24-hour runoff event. The surface facilities sediment pond (Pond A) is designed to contain one year of accumulated sediment and the coal refuse embankment • 7 sediment pond (Pond 8) is designed to contain approximately 7 months accumulated sediment. The applicant has committed to semi-annual sediment cleanout of both sediment ponds, therefore the designs should be adequate. Sediment Ponds A and B are designed with emergency spillways capable of passing the peak flow from a 25 -year 24-hour precipitation event. Neither sediment pond is equipped with a principal spillway. Instead, the applicant proposes to install a pumping system to dewater the sediment ponds and use the water in the hydraulic mining system. The sediment pond below the refuse embankment is not designed with a liner. Some type of lining is important since seepage from the refuse embankment will likely be highly saline. The Division finds that the following stipulation is necessary to ensure the minimization of impacts to the hydrologic balance: Stipulation No. 7 WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE PERMITTEE MUST SUBMIT A PLAN TO THE DIVISION TO INSTALL OR CONSTRUCT A LINER IN THE SEDIMENT POND BELOW THE COAL PROCESSING WASTE EMBANKMENT THAT WILL MINIMIZE SEEPAGE LOSSES FROM THE SEDIMENT POND. THE PERMITTEE MUST OBTAIN DIVISION APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN WITHIN 9 MONTHS AFTER PERMIT ISSUANCE. Water Rights and Replacement The Storm King Mine is proposed as a hydraulic mining operation. As such, the operation requires large quantities of water for operations such as cutting of the coal use in slurry lines transporting fine refuse to the waste site. The operation has facilities designed to process and recirculate the majority of water required for the operation. The water circulation is designed as a closed -system with the major water loss occurring through evaporation, adhesion to coal and refuse, and by seepage underground during mining. The application projects that water loss through these processes will require a make-up of approximately 600 acre-feet of water annually to the system. The Storm King Mine has acquired water rights more than sufficient to augment their annual projected water loss. There is one drainage in the permit area which will be dammed by the refuse embankment. The refuse embankment is designed as a total containment structure for the probable maximum precipitation (PMP). The permittee has not submitted any application for water rights from this drainage. Therefore, the following stipulation is required. Stipulation No. 6 WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE PERMITTEE WILL SUBMIT TO THE DIVISION A PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT OF WATER IF THERE IS A CALL ON THE DOWNSTREAM COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM, SUCH THAT ANY APPLICABLE WATER DERIVED FROM THE DRAINAGE IMPOUNDED BY THE REFUSE EMBANKMENT CAN BE RELEASED OR REPLACED. THE APPLICANT MUST ALSO ADDRESS IMPACTS TO THE HYDROLOGIC BALANCE IF SUCH AUGMENTATION IS NEEDED TO BE DERIVED FROM THE REFUSE IMPONDMENT. • • 8 VI. Hydrologic Balance: Ground Water - Rules 2.04.5, 2.04.7, 2.05.3(4), 2.05.6(3) and 4.05 The descriptions of ground water within the permit application are located in Sections 3.3.4, 5.1 and 5.2; appendices 3.3-3a, 3.3-4, 3.3-5, 3.3-7, 3.3-9 and 3.3-10; and Figures 3.3-11, 3.3-12, 3.3-17 and 5.2-2. A detailed description of the ground water in the permit and adjacent areas is contained in the Description of the Environment section of this findings document. A Description of the ground water in the general area is contained in the Cumulative Hydrologic Impacts Study and Probable Hydrologic Consequences of Mining section of this findings document. The descriptions of mining impacts on ground water are located in sections 4.2.3.3, 4.2.3.4, 4.2.4.2.2, 4.2.4.2.4, 4.2.4.2.6, 4.5.3 and 5.2 of the application. The discussion on ground water contained in the Cumulative Hydrologic Impacts Study and Probable Hydrologic Consequences of Mining section of this findings document. The applicant has supplied sufficient ground water information to make the findings required by the Act. The applicant is therefore in compliance with Rule 2.04.5, 2.04.7, 2.05.3(4), 2.05.6(3) and 4.05. • • 9 VIII. Alluvial Valley Floors - Rules 2.06.8 and 4.24 The Division presently cannot make the required findings concerning alluvial valley floors (AVF). The following information must be submitted before the Division can propose a decision to approve the Coal Ridge No. 1 permit application. Requirement No. 3 1) The applicant states that "the downgradient wells, OW -8 and OW -4L, should detect any degradation of water quality due to the coal processing operation." The Division agrees with this portion of the proposed monitoring plan for monitoring the AVF below the surface facilities, but there is no mention of a plan to monitor the effects of the coal refuse embankment on the AVF downgradient from that structure. A plan for monitoring any surface water and ground water quality effects must be submitted. This plan must include collection of one year of baseline information if applicable. 2) The applicants discussion of the significance of the AVF area proposed to be disturbed only discusses the acreage to be disturbed. In order for the Division to make a finding concerning significance of the proposed area to be disturbed, the applicant must provide an economic demonstration showing that the 6.4 acres to be disturbed are an insignificant part of the AVF farming unit. 3) The applicant must submit a quantitative assessment of the effects of the coal refuse embankment on the quantity and quality of surface and ground water supplying the AVF downgradient from the pile. No assessment is contained in the application. 4) The applicant must provide a description of the methods that will b used to restore the essential hydrologic functions of the AVF at the slot storage area. Since it appears that the essential hydrologic functions of this portion of the AVF are those which make the area flood irrigable, the applicant must submit a plan for restoration of the soil profile and ditch system in this area. 5) The applicant states that approximately 600 acre-feet will be useti consumptively by the mining operation each year. This water is planned to be taken from the Vulcan Ditch which is used to irrigate the AVF in the facilities area. Furthermore, it is stated in the application that the apparent irrigation application rate is 10 to 12 acre-feet per acre per year. As presently stated, the Division cannot find that the proposed operation will not affect the quantity of water supplying the AVF since as much as 50 percent of the water supply will be removed. However, it is apparent that 10 to 12 acre-feet per acre is an excessive rate of application. The applicant must submit an estimate of the amount of water actually required to be applied to the irrigated portion of the AVF in order to maintain production levels. The application must then commit to supplying that amount of water at all times except when the Vulcan Ditch is flowing at an amount greater than is required. This means that irrigation of the AVF must take precedence over the mining operation needs. • • 10 IX. Climatological Information and Air Resources - Rules 2.04.8, 2.05.4(2)(h), 2.05.6(1) and 4.17 Baseline information on climate and air quality in the area is presented in the application in Volume I, pages 3-103 through 3-109. Air pollution control measures are described on pages 4-79 through 4-80 in Volume 1 of the permit application. The climate in the area is semi -arid with moderate summers and long, cold winters. The average annual precipitation in the general area is 16.23 inches, most of which occurs in the fall and winter. The prevailing winds in the mine site area are from the southeast with an average velocity of 5.3 mph. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirement of this section. • 11 X. Topsoil - Rules 2.04.9, 2.05.3(5), 2.05.4(2)(d) and 4.06 Baseline soils information and the topsoil removal and redistribution plans in Volume I, pages 3-109 to 3-123 and 4-65 to 4-68 and Volume II, Appendix 3.5-1 were reviewed for compliance with the regulations. Five soil types occur within the proposed permit area: the Heldt Silty clay; Nihil Stony loam; Ascalon loam; Ustic Torriorthents-Rock Outcrop Complex; and Irock Stony loam. The table below shows how much topsoil is to be salvaged from each soil type. Soil Type Heldt Silty clay Nihil Stony loam Ascalon loam Ustic Torriorthents-Rock Outcrop Irock Stony loam Average Salvage Depth 60 inches 12 inches 60 inches 0 inches 0 inches No soil will be salvaged from the Ustic Torriorthents-Rock Outcrop because these soils occupy steep slopes and are too rocky to be used as a source of topsoil. No soil will be salvaged from the Irock Stony loam because this soil is too rocky to be used as a source of topsoil. Sufficient topsoil is available from the Heldt, Nihil and Ascalon soils for reclamation and of better quality than the Irock and Ustic Torriorthents. Therefore, the requirement of Rule 4.06.2(4) is met. Textures of these soils range from loam to silty clay. All the soils have a low electrical conductivity (EC) and sodium absorption ration (SAR). Most of the surface and subsurface soil norizons rate fair to good as a source of topsoil material. Topsoil will be salvaged from all areas proposed to be disturbed and placed in topsoil stockpiles. The location of topsoil stockpiles for the coal refuse impoundment are shown on map 3.5-1. The applicant did not indicate where topsoil from the surface facilities area will be stockpiled due to potential requirements for visual barriers by Garfield County. Therefore, the following stipulation is necessary: Stipulation No. 7 THE PERMITTEE MUST SUBMIT A PLAN TO THE DIVISION SHOWING WHERE ALL TOPSOIL SALVAGED FROM THE FACILITIES AREA WILL BE STOCKPILED. THE PERMITTEE MUST OBTAIN DIVISION APPROVAL OF THIS PLANE PRIOR TO ANY DISTURBANCE. The soils resource information shows that the applicant has insufficient topsoil at the coal refuse impoundment area to meet the requirement of Rule 4.10.4 for replacing four feet of cover over the coal refuse. The applicant proposes to strip additional material as non-toxic, non-combustible cover following topsoil removal. The topsoil will be stored in two stockpiles and the overburden will be in one stockpile, all above the coal refuse impoundment. Several deficiencies still remain in the topsoil salvage plan at the coal refuse impoundment which must be resolved before the Division can approve this portion of the proposed operation. • • 12 Requirement No. 4 THE APPLICANT MUST RECEIVE DIVISION APPROVAL IN WRITING OF A REVISION TO THE APPROVED PERMIT APPLICATION OF: 1) A DETAILED PLAN SHOWING HOW THE TOPSOIL STOCCKPILES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION BY RUNOFF FROM THE AREA ABOVE THE STOCKPILES. 2) A PLAN MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 4.03 FOR ROADS TO THESE AREAS. 3) A REVISED TOPSOIL SALVAGE PLAN WHICH INCLUDES SALVAGE OF TOPSOIL IN THE PROPOSED BORROW MATERIAL STOCKPILE AREA. 4) A REVISED TOPSOIL SALVAGE AND REPLACEMENT PLAN WHICH INCLUDES THE SEPARATE STOCKPILING OF A PLUS 6 FROM C HORIZON MATERIAL, AND THE REPLACEMENT OF C HORIZON MATERIAL PRIOR TO REPLACEMENT OF A AND B HORIZON MATERIAL. Upon completion of backfilling and grading operations, topsoil will be redistributed. Approximately 12 inches of topsoil will be replaced over the entire disturbed area. This should be adequate to achieve reclamation since the majority of the revegetation species have root systems which concentrate within this or lesser depth, and the soils exhibit no properties that should limit plant growth. With satisfactory resolution of the above stipulations, the proposed operation will be in compliance with topsoil requirements. 13 XI. Vegetation - Rules 2.04.10, 2.05.4(2)(e), and 4.15 The Division reviewed the application for compliance with the Rules and Regulations. Vegetation baseline information is contained within the application on pages 31-124 through 3-142 in Volume I, and Appendices 3.6-1 in Volume II, 3.6-2, and 3.6-3 in Volume VI; the revegetation plan is contained on pages 4-68-69 and 4-71 through 74 in Volume I. The Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine proposes to disturb significant acreages in three vegetation communities and a small area of a fourth community. The applicant proposes to disturb 104 acres of sagebrush community, 113 acres of pinyon -juniper vegetation type, 30 acres of irrigated hayland, and 9 acres of mountain shrub. The applicant had vegetation baseline studies of varying scope and location undertaken by three different consultants during different years (1981, 1982, 1983). During the review the Division determined that none of the studies provided sufficient baseline vegetation information to meet the requirements of the Division (see Figure No. 1). The following information must be submitted before the Division can approve th permit application: Requirement No. 5 A. THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE VEGETATION BASELINE INFORMATION ACCEPTABLE TO THE DIVISION, FOR THE PARAMETERS VEGETATION COVER, VEGETATION PRODUCTION, WOODY PLANT DENSITY, AND SPECIES DIVERSITY FOR THE SAGEBRUSH, PINYON -JUNIPER, AND IRRIGATED HAYLAND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES. B. IF THE PERMITTEE ELECTS TO UTILIZE REFERENCE AREAS AS THE MEANS FOR DETERMINING REVEGETATION SUCCESS; AT A MINIMUM ADEQUATE INFORMATION ON VEGETATION COVER, AND VEGETATION PRODUCTION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR REFERENCEEACH AREA FOR E COMMUNITY WILL FURTHER BEREQUIREDTOHITHE PERMITTEE DEMMONSTRATECOMPARABILITYOFEACH REFERENCE AREA TO AFFECTED COMMUNITIES. In reviewing the revegetation plan many areas were not addressed sufficiently to allow the Division to make a finding of compliance. For this reason the following information is required: Requirement No. 6 THE APPLICANT SHALL REVISE THE PERMIT TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. REVEGETATION PLAN: 1. THE PERMITTEE NEEDS TO REVISE THE PERMIT APPLICATION TO SPECIFY SPECIFIC DATES DURING WHICH REVEGETATION ACTIVITIES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN (e.g. FERTILIZING, MULCHING, SEEDING). • 14 2. THE PERMITTEE NEEDS TO REVISE THE PROPOSED SEED MIXES TO REFLECT SPECIES COMPOSITION ON-SITE, AND GOALS OF THE POST -MINING LAND USE. 3. THE PERMITTEE NEEDS TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM MULCHING RATE TO 3,500 LB/ACRE. 4. THE PERMITTEE MUST HAVE ALL PEST AND DISEASE CONTROL MEASURES APPROVED BY THE DIVISION IN WRITING PRIOR TO INITIATION. 5. THE PERMITTEE NEEDS TO PROPOSE MEASURES FOR DETERMINATION OF REVEGETATION SUCCESS FOR, COVER, PRODUCTION, WOODY PLANT DENSITY, AND DIVERSITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 4.15.7. 6. THE PERMITTEE NEEDS TO PROVIDE A TOPSOIL SAMPLING AND FERTILIZATION PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION PRIOR TO SEEDING AND MULCHING. Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(n) and based on available information the Division finds that the proposed activities would not affect the continued existence of endangered and threatened plant species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats as determined under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Data Obtained Woody Density Production x not adequate x not adequate x adequate x not adequate x not adequate r x not adequate x not adequate C L O v 0 v C0 m m 1r v w v O v 0 v > > O O O O C u C u x x w d 0. y�•0 0 • ..y .0 0 C m - 7 E 0 1 a7 A o O 1n a7 T v oo c m 01 a Area Sam Mountain Shrub • ▪ x x not adequate • X ••+ X x x w v 0. 0 .0 0 .0 m h m O 1 0 1.. C .0 0 .0 N T v OC 0 as CO m U) a Cr) Cook, 1982 Surface facilities Greystone, 1983 3 m m •� •r • • 16 XII. Fish and Wildlife Information - Rules 2.04.11, 2.05.6(2), and 4.18 Fish and wildlife information can be found on pages 3-143 through 3-171 in Volume I. The fish and wildlife protection plan is on pages 4-81 through 4-82 of Volume I. The proposed permit and adjacent area hosts a wide range of wildlife species. This is largely due to the existence of numerous distinct habitats at the mine site. Wildlife which currently inhabits the area may be displaced by surface activities. However, there are many acres of similar habitat surrounding the mine area which can easily absorb displaced individuals. There are no threatened or endangered species which are known to use or inhabit the site. However, it is possible that the site is used as hunting grounds for some Peregrine Falcons which nest to the north and east. The Division requested comments from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. No comments were received by the Division. Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(n) and on the basis of available information, the Division finds that the proposed activities would not affect the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. The Division finds the proposed operation in compliance with the requirements of this section. • • 17 XIII. Prime Farmlands - Rules 2.04.12, 2.06.6 and 4.25 The Division has made a negative determination on the presence of prime farmlands within the proposed permit area. The decision was based on evidence provided by the Soil Conservation Service on pages 3-171 to 3-173 in Volume I of the application. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. • • 18 XIV. Operations Description - Rules 2.05.2, 2.05.3(1), 2.05.3(2) and 4.01 Information on the proposed operation plan is located on pages 4-1 through 4-9 of Volume I. Hydraulic mining is to be conducted in the Wheeler and Lower seams, both of which are steeply dipping. Questions and concerns relating to sequences of mining, coal and utility corridors have been satisfactorily resolved. In response to the Division's comment in the preliminary adequacy review, requesting more details regarding the proposal of several escapeways and raises daylighting at the outcrop on the Grand Hogback's northeast -facing slope, the applicant has provided additional description of the planned facilities on pages 4-26 and 4-26a of the amended application. The amended response indicates that the "...actual plans may vary to insure slope and entry stability". However, no detailed designs, diversion or drainage plans, or reclamation plans are provided for these proposed facilities. Based upon the amended application as it currently exists, the Division cannot approve construction of these facilities until adequate baseline information and design engineering plans have been submitted, reviewed and approved. Therefore, the following information is necessary before the Division can approve this activity: Requirement No. 7 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE ESCAPEWAYS AND RAISES DISCUSSED ON PAGES 4-26 AND 4-26A OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT DETAILED PLANS TO THE DIVISION AND OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE DIVISION IN WRITING. Wheeler coal production rates, • • 19 XV. Explosives - Rules 2.05.3(b) and 4.08 The section on use of explosives in Section 4 of Volume I of the permit application was reviewed for compliance. The applicant proposes to conduct limited blasting operations during construction of the the portal face -up, site preparation for the facilities, at the borrow area for construction of the coal processing waste embankment and along the rail spur and haul road. The applicant submitted a general blasting plan which lacks sufficient detail for approval. The following information is necessary before the Division can approve any blasing: Requirement No. 8 THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT A DETAILED BLASTING PLAN TO THE DIVISION AND OBTAIN DIVISION APPROVAL IN WRITING. THE DETAILED BLASTING PLAN MUST CONTAIN, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO: 1) A PROPOSED BLASTING SCHEDULE PUBLICATION. 2) AN INVENTORY OF ALL STRUCTURES WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE OF THE PROPOSED BLASTING AREA. 3) A COPY OF THE PROPOSED BLASTING RECORDS SHEET. 4) A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE BLASTING PATTERN, CHARGE AND PACKING OF HOLES, TYPE OF FUSES AND DETONATION, AND SEQUENCE AND TIMING OF FIRING. In addition, in order to aid the Division in tracking commitment in the permit, the following stipulation is necessary: Stipulation No. 8 PRIOR TO CONDUCTING ANY BLASTING OPERATIONS, THE PERMITTEE WILL CONDUCT THE NECESSARY PRE -BLASTING SURVEYS AS PRESENTED ON PAGES 4-63 AND 4-63a OF VOLUME I OF THE APPROVED PERMIT APPLICATION. • • 20 XVI. Backfilling and Grading - Rules 2.05.2(6)(b), 2.05.4(2)(a), 2.05.4(2)(c), 4.09, 4.13 and 4.14 The permit application includes a discussion of backfilling and grading on page 4-70. The surface facilities to be constructed will be located on a gently sloping area containing only small ephemeral drainages. Minimal cut and fill work will therefore be required. This will mean also that minimal grading will be required during reclamation. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. • • 21 XVII. Coal Processing and Non -Coal Processin_g Waste - Rules 2.05.3(8), 2.05.4(2)(f), 4.10 and 4.11 The Division cannot presently write findings for this section. The following are the Division's comments: The applicant has responded to our comments contained within our earlier adequacy review, which dealt with deficiencies contained in Appendix 3.3-3a. The amendments are made in the form of amended pages to the original consultant's report, prepared by Chen and Associates, Inc. However, nothing was submitted in the supplemental submittals to attest that the report, as amended, is still certified by Chen and Associates, Inc. The applicant should submit a certification statement prepared by Chen and Associates which certifies the consultant's authorship of the amendments. The following comments assume receipt of that certification statement. (1) The applicant has performed a pseudo -static seismic stability analysis of the proposed life -of -mine configuration for the 300' high coal processing waste slurry embankment. The applicant has applied a horizontal acceleration factor of 0.1, as recommended by Mr. Rahe Junge of the Colorado Geological Survey. Unfortunately, the analysis performed determined the pseudo -static slope stability safety factor of the life -of -mine structure to be 1.1. Rule 4.11.5(3)(a)(ii) specifically requires that the seismic safety factor for such structures "be at least 1.2". The applicant will have to amend the engineered design, in order to achieve the required seismic safety factor. (2) In response to our earlier comments regarding verification of the durability of the coarse refuse fraction, proposed to be utilized to construct the upper and outer portions of the zoned embankment, the applicant has provided a response on page 16a of amended Appendix 3.3-3a. This response theorizes that the hydraulic mining process would result in segregation of the more durable coarse refuse fragments. Unless the applicant amends the permit application to commit to the following, our eventual findings document will include a stipulation which imposes the consultant's recommendations, presented on page 16a, upon the approved plan. This stipulation will impose the conducting of "visual inspection of the coarse refuse material" as well as the performance of "point load tests" to verify the results of the visual inspection. Further, that stipulation should impose requirements to develop specific point load testing criteria for use in performing the tests and require the periodic submittal of certified reports presenting the test results to the Division. (3) In response to our earlier comments requiring the elaboration of the application's discussion regarding detection and treatment techniques to be used to preclude development of hydrocompactible soil problems in the foundational soils beneath the proposed pile, the consultant has amended page 22 of Appendix 3.3-3a. The amended text commits the applicant to the testing of in-place dry density and liquid limits of the foundational soils, which the USGS has allegedly correlated to the collapsible nature of soils. Our eventual findings will reiterate the commitment made on page 22 of amended Appendix 3.3-3a, verbatim. • • 22 (4) In response to earlier comments regarding the development of final plans and specifications for the proposed blanket drain, the consultant has amended pages 24 and 25 of Appendix 3.3-3a. The amended text commits to the construction of the blanket drain,"... in accordance with general criteria presented by the US Bureau of Reclamation for filter drains." Further, the text states that the drain system will consist of pipes to transmit the collected water from beneath the embankment. A pipe collector drain would be susceptible to differential consolidation settlement disruption. If pipes are included within the final design, blanket drains should be sized to carry the projected flows without consideration of the pipeline's capacity. Our eventual findings will reiterate the commitments contained in the text of pages 24 and 25 of amended Appendix 3.3-3a, concerning specifications for the blanket drain and collector drain system, as well as all monitoring operations and facilities associated with the drain. (5) On amended page 26 of Appendix 3.3-3a, the consultant commits to the development of a monitoring program to verify embankment stability "...in the final design phase of the project and adjusted during construction as necessary." Our eventual findings will reiterate this commitment on page 26 of Appendix 3.3-3a, verbatim. It will be necessary to stipulate a specific timeframe by which this plan for monitoring the embankment stability of the proposed coal processing waste structure must be developed and implemented. We cannot wait until the life -of -mine, 300' high configuration, is achieved to determine the slurry embankment's slope stability. (6) On page 27 of the original version of Appendix 3.3-3a, the consultant recommended "... the engineering characteristics of the coal refuse be evaluated once sufficient quantities of refuse are available. A reevaluation of the design of the embankment should be undertaken when the properties of the coal refuse are known." Approval of the embankment plan will include a stipulation requiring both the completion of the material testing and the verification and/or amendment of the engineered designs for the structure. In summary, the applicant has submitted the majority of the information required to comprise a "general plan" for the coal processing waste embankment, as described in Rule 2.05.3(8)(a). With the addition of a "certification statement that includes a schedule setting forth the dates that any detailed design plan ... will be submitted to the Division", the general plan would be complete. Amendment of the design to yield the required seismic safety factor (see comment (1) above) would then render the general plan technically adequate. The applicant has not, however, completed a "detailed design plan", as described in that same rule. In the alternative, the applicant could pursue phased approval of the coal processing waste embankment structure. In order to pursue this approach, the application would have to be amended to include appropriate stability analyses for each of the separate phases' configurations, such as that of the starter embankment. • • 23 XVIII. Mine Facilities, Coal Handling Structures, and Support Facilities - Rules 2.05.3(3), 2.05.3(7), 4.04 Information concerning these facilities can be found on pages 4-29 through 4-40c of Volume I of the permit application. The surface facilities are to be built in two phases. These two phases are reflected in Figures 4.2-7A, which shows the development phase (1985-86), and 4.2-7 and 4.2-8, which show the final, full production phase. During the development phase SKM will be using an off-site loadout maintained by the railroad. Questions and concerns which during the permit review regarding structure locations, construction phasing, open coal storage, and conveyor construction. These issues have been adequately resolved through subsequent submittals. The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. • • 24 XIX. Roads - Rules 2.05.3(3) and 4.03 The Roads Section in Volume I, Section 4, and the Road Drainage Section in Volume VI of the application were reviewed for compliance. The applicant proposes to construct an access road to the surface facilities which will be temporarily used as a haul road until the proposed railroad is constructed; a haul road from the surface facilities area to the coal refuse embankments; and several light use roads along the pipeline corridors transmission line corridor; and monitoring sites. The applicant proposes to retain the access and haul roads as part of the post -mining land use. In accordance with Rule 4.03(1)(f), retention of the roads can be approved by the Division if the landowner requests that the road be left. Therefore, the following information is necessary: Requirement No. 9 PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE HAUL ROAD AND/OR ACCESS ROAD, THE APPLICANT MUST EITHER: 1) REVISE THE APPROVED APPLICATION WITH A WRITTEN REQUEST FROM THE LANDOWNERS(S) THAT THE ROADS OR CERTAIN PARTS THEREOF ARE TO BE LEFT OPEN FOR FURTHER USE: OR 2) REVISE THE APPROVED PERMIT APPLICATION WITH A DETAILED RECLAMATION PLAN FOR THE ROADS. Since the access road is to be temporarily used as a haul road, it must meet the standards of Rule 4.03.1 as a haul road. This includes certification that the road has been constructed as designed. The applicant has not committed to certification of either the haul road or the access road; therefore, the following stipulation is necessary: Stipulation No. 9 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION, THE PERMITTEE MUST SUBMIT A STATEMENT BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER CERTIFYING THAT THE HAUL ROAD AND THE ACCESS ROAD, WHICH WILL TEMPORARILY BE USED AS A HAUL ROAD, HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AS DESIGNED. The designs of the haul road and access road meet all the requirements of Rule 4.03.1 for drainage, grade, road cuts, and road embankments, with one exception. The applicant has not completed a structural and foundation analysis to establish design standards for road embankment stability appropriate to the site; therefore, the following information is necessary before the Division can approve this portion of the proposed operation: Requirement No. 10 PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE HAUL ROAD AND ACCESS ROAD, THE APPLICANT MUST CONDUCT AND RECEIVE DIVISION APPROVAL OF A STRUCTURAL AND FOUNDATION ANALYSIS TO ESTABLISH DESIGN STANDARDS FOR EMBANKMENT STABILITY APPROPRIATE TO THE SITE. THE ANALYSIS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH RULE 4.03.1(3)(d)(vii). • 25 The applicant proposes to construct light -use roads along pipeline, transmission, and inspection corridors depicted in Volume V, figure 4.2-3. The applicant states in the application: "When the final designs and surveys are completed in line with the BLM requirements, Storm King Mines will indicate the proposed light use roads on Figures 4.2-3, 4.2-4 and 4.2-5 and will construct said roads in accordance with Section 4.03.3 complying with the location restrictions, grade, pitch, alignment, cuts, embankments, topsoil removal, revegetation cover, drainage, surfacing, maintenance and reclamation conditions enumerated therein." Since the applicant has not submitted a plan for these light -use roads, the Division cannot currently approve the portion of the proposed operation. The following information is necessary before the Division can approve this portion of the proposed operation: Requirement No. 11 S, THE ANT SUBMIT AND PRIOR O INP WRITINOVAL G, DIVISIONF ANY T -USE APPROVALDOF PLANSPANDCDESIGNSTMEETING THE RECEIVE, REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 4.03.3. In addition to the above-mentioned light -use roads, the applicant will use roads to ground water monitoring stations. The roads to these monitoring stations were constructed under an exploration plan approved by the Division. The Division requested in the preliminary adequacy review that these roads be shown on a map and the information required by Rule 4.03.3 be submitted. The applicant's response to this comment was insufficient; therefore, the following information is required before the Division can approve the permit application: Requirement No. 12 THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT A MAP SHOWING THE EXISTING LIGHT -USE ROADS USED TO ACCESS MONITORING FACILITIES. IN ADDITION, THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY RULE 4.03.3 MUST BE SUBMITTED. IF ANY OF THESE ROADS ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 4.03.3, A PLAN TO BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE MUST BE SUBMITTED. • • 26 XX. Bonding - Rule 2.05.4(2)(b) and Rule 3 The Division currently cannot make a finding concerning bonding. The following information must be submitted before the Division can approve the permit application: Requirement No. 13 THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT AN ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF REMOVING ALL STRUCTURES IN THE PROPOSED PERMIT AREA, INCLUDING PIPELINES AND TRANSMISSION LINES. SALVAGE VALUE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED WHEN COMPUTING THE COSTS. THE ESTIMATED REMOVAL COSTS MUST INCLUDE SUFFICIENT DETAIL FOR THE DIVISION TO VERIFY THE COSTS. UNIT COSTS MUST BE BASED ON A STANDARD REFERENCE. Furthermore, it appears that the applicant used the equipment and operator costs in the example sent with the preliminary adequacy review. The equipment costs in the example are based on 1981 rental rates and the Division currently uses an hourly cost for operators of $18.00. The reclamation cost estimate must be updated with current rates. • • 27 XXI. Sealing of Drill Holes and Underground Openings - Rules 2.05,4(2)(9), and 4.07. Closure plans for drill holes, mine portals and shafts are delineated on pages 4-69 through 4-69a of Volume I. Monitoring wells when reclaimed must not be filled to the surface with concrete as described on pages 4-69 and 4-69a. Therefore, the following stipulation is required: Stipulation No. 10 DURING RECLAMATION OF MONITORING WELL DRILL HOLES THE TOP 3 FEET OF THE HOLE MUST BE BACKFILLED WITH DRILL CUTTINGS, SOIL MATERIALS, OR OTHER SOFT, FRIABLE MATERIAL AS AVAILABLE SO AS NOT TO PRECLUDE CULTIVATION OF THE AREA WHERE DRILL HOLES EXIST. With the acceptance of the above stipulation, the proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section. • • 28 XXII. Subsidence — Rules 2.05.6(6) and 4.20 The Division cannot presently complete findings for the subsidence section. The applicant must submit plans for another set of subsidence monitoring monuments before the Division can consider this section adequate (see comment 1 below). The following are the Division's comments: In response to comments included within the Division's original adequacy review, the applicant's consultant, Subsidence Engineering, Inc., has completed numerous amendments to the original application's Appendix 4.5-1. Nonetheless, a few deficiencies still remain, as discussed here below. The application's proposed survey subsidence monitoring program has not been amended in response to our earlier adequacy comments. The application proposes the installation of one linear set of widely -spaced subsidence monitoring monuments, oriented perpendicular to the spine of Coal Ridge. Considering the importance of verifying subsidence projections contained within the application (Appendix 4.5-1), reliance upon only one limited set of monuments is considered imprudent. The permit application must include the installation of a second analogous set of subsidence monitoring monuments at another agreed location on Coal Ridge. (2) In response to our earlier comments requesting elaboration of the subsidence mechanism discussion, the consultant has amended Appendix 4.5-1 to discuss the mechanisms controlling the character of roof strata failure. Further, the text now contains a specific discussion of anticipated gob movements in relation to bedrock dip. The consultant observes that a slight possibility exists for sinkhole collapse to occur near the outcrop crown pillar. The amended application proposes a specific visual monitoring program to concentrate in areas over and adjacent to the crown pillar, in order to specifically detect potential sinkhole collapse (page 41.4). The amended application also presents a proposed mitigative program for sinkhole collapse, were it to occur. On page 43.3 of amended Appendix 4.5-1 the consultant proposes that Storm King restrict access to any areas of sinkhole collapse and that appropriate amendments be made to the mine plan. In preparing our eventual findings, we should stipulate that, if a hazard to the public or environment is determined to exist, Storm King Mining will be required to implement appropriate sealing and backfilling of sinkhole collapse features. (3) In response to our original adequacy comments, the consultant amended pages 39.3 through 39.7 of Appendix 4.5-1 to present a more comprehensive discussion of slope stability and subsidence relationships on Coal Ridge. The amended application observes that moderate slumping and landsliding is limited to areas "outside and below the anticipated areas of surface subsidence effects." (page 39.5) With the exception of one questionable portion of the northeastern face of Horse Mountain, the Division concurs with that opinion. There appears, however, to be extensive geomorphic evidence of ancient slope movements throughout large portions of the slopes on the northeast face of Coal Ridge. (1) • • 29 On pages 41.1 and 41.2 of the amended Appendix 4.5-1, the consultant describes a proposed visual monitoring program which will specifically observe slope characteristics considered indicative of slope movement, such as "... surface cracking, movement of large rock blocks and the development of bulging ground near the base of the slope." The amended application's Appendix 4.5-1 also presents a detailed proposed program for mitigation of slope stability problems. Simplistically, in areas where no danger is presented to structures, mine personnel or the public, the applicant proposes to restrict access and visually observe manifested slope instability phenomena. In any areas where a hazard exists to structures, mine personnel or the public, the operator will also, "... as necessary and appropriate, provide slope stabilization techniques". As amended, however, vagueness exists concerning the role of the Division in the decision of whether or not a hazard to structures, mine personnel or the public exists. To avoid possible future disagreement, our eventual findings will impose a stipulation which clearly states that the Division shall review and concur with any decision of whether a hazard is represented by any specific slope movement event and whether a slope stabilization program should be developed and implemented. (4) It will be important to clearly present the results of the visual and survey monitoring programs at the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. The amended application presents no detail regarding the format of the semi-annual subsidence monitoring reports. In the interest of facilitating complete and efficient presentation of the accumulated subsidence monitoring data, our eventual findings will include a stipulation requiring the submission of a proposed subsidence report format within six months following issuance of the permit. • • 30 XXIII. Special Categories of Mining (Other than AVF and Prime Farmlands) - Rules 2.06, 4.22, 4.23, 4.26, 4.27, 4.28 and 4.29 The only special category of mining that applies to the proposed Coal Ridge No. 1 mining operation is steep slope mining. Portions of the proposed permit area qualify as steep slope mining areas, exhibiting slope gradients in excess of 20°. Portions of these steep slope mining areas will be subsided during the first five year permit term. Based upon the information contained within the permit application and with satisfactory resolution of the stipulations in Section XXII (Subsidence) of this findings document the proposed operation will be in compliance with the requirements of this section. • • 31 XXIV. Miscellaneous Compliance - Rules 2.03.3, 2.05.6(5), 4.02, 4.12, 4.19, 4.21, 4.28, and 4.30 The applicant has met the requirements for format and supplemental information as shown on pages 1-1 through 1-7, and pages 2-3 through 2-3k of Volume I. No surface mining is planned near underground mines. Signs and markers will be installed in compliance with Rule 4.02. The Division finds the proposed operation in compliance with the requirements of this section. • • 32 XXV. Operations on Lands Subject to Limitations or Prohibitions - Rules 2.03.7 and 2.10 The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of Rule 2.07.6(2)(d) for the following reasons: The permit area of the proposed operation is not within: a. An area designated unsuitable for mining; b. An area under study for designation as unsuitable for mining; c. Any lands subject to prohibitions or limitations. The proposed permit boundary includes several thousand feet of Garfield County Road 335 or is within 100 feet of the outside right-of-way of this public road. In addition, portions of this road are to be used as a coal haul road temporarily. The operator must demonstrate that the necessary requirements of Rule 2.07.6(2)(d)(iv) have been met. Therefore the following information is required to make a finding of compliance: Requirement No. 14 THE APPLICANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THE NOTICE AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 2.07.6 (2)(d)(iv) FOR GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD 335 HAVE BEEN MET PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. The proposed permit boundary also includes or is located within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling. The operator must submit waivers from each owner of such dwellings. Therefore the following information is required to make a finding of compliance: Requirement No. 15 THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT WRITTEN WAIVERS ALLOWING SURFACE ACTIVITIES FROM ALL OWNERS OF DWELLINGS WITHIN 300 FEET FROM OR INCLUDED WITHIN THE PERMIT BOUNDARY. The applicant has not submitted all necessary maps with proper certification, therefore the following information is required for Division approval of the permit application: Requirement No. 16 1) THE APPLICANT MUST PROPERLY CERTIFY FIGURES 2.1-1, 2.1-2, 2.1-3, 2.1-4, 3.1-1, 3.1-2, AND 3.1-3. 2) THE APPLICANT MUST ADD THE SEAL AND P.E. NUMBER OF SAM S. ARENTZ TO FIGURES 3.3-6, 3.3-7, 4.2-1, AND 4.2-27 OR PROPERLY RECERTIFY THESE FIGURES. • • 33 3) THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT A NEW MAP OR REVISE AN EXISTING MAP TO INDICATE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ON ONE MAP: PROPOSED SURFACE DISTURBANCE BOUNDARY, 5 YEAR PERMIT BOUNDARY, AFFECTED AREA FOR FIRST 5 YEAR PERMIT, AND THE PERMIT AND AFFECTED AREA BOUNDARIES FOR EACH SUCCESSIVE 5 YEAR PERMIT TERM THROUGH THE LIFE OF THE MINE. 4) THE APPLICANT MUST COMPLETE CERTIFICATION OF FIGURES 3.3-11, 3.3-12, AND 5.1-1 BY ADDING THE APPROPRIATE SIGNATURE TO THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT WITHIN 10 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. • • 34 XXVI. Demonstration that Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations can be Feasibly Accomplished - Rule 2.07.6(2)(b) Contingent upon the satisfactory resolution of stipulations and requirements presented in the findings document, the following finding of compliance is valid: The Division finds, pursuant to 2.07.6(2)(b), based on information in the application and from all available sources, that surface coal mining and reclamation operations can be feasibly accomplished under the Mining and Reclamation Plan contained in the application. • a 35 XXVII. Compatibility with Anticipated Adjacent Operations - Rule 2.07.6(2)(i) Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(i) the Division finds that SKM operations will not be inconsistent with other operations anticipated to be performed in areas adjacent to the proposed permit area. • • 36 XXVIII. Reclamation Fees Required by 30CFR, Chapter VII, Subchapter R Rule 2.07.6(2)(o) Storm King Mines, Inc. has not previously operated a coal mining operation in the United States. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to pay reclamation fees until mining commences. Based on the above, the Division finds that the proposed operation is in compliance with Rule 2.07.6(2)(o). Doc. No. 4296F