Laserfiche WebLink
11/20/2014 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail-Re:EFCI TR43 <br /> STATE, OF Hernandez - DNR Alysha <alysha.hernandez@state.co.us> <br /> COILORADO <br /> Re: EFCI TR43 <br /> 1 message <br /> Zuber- DNR, Rob <rob.zuber@state.co.us> Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:26 AM <br /> To: "W D Corley, Jr." <ajjc@att.net> <br /> Cc: Alysha Hernandez - DNR <alysha.hernandez@state.co.us>, Mike Boulay - DNR <mike.boulay@state.co.us> <br /> Thank you, Dr. Corley. Mike Boulay and I are giving this TR careful consideration. We are currently in the <br /> adequacy review process, and we appreciate your comments. <br /> Alysha, please file this email under TR-43, and name it "Comments of Dr. Corley, landowner." <br /> Rob <br /> Rob Zuber, P.E. <br /> Environmental Protection Specialist II <br /> Coal Regulatory Program <br /> COLORADO <br /> ,�.: � �i-vision of 1Recta�m,at�i o n, <br /> Miningand safety <br /> Departrnent of Nal.ural 1�esources <br /> 303.866.3567, extension 8113 1 F 303.832.8106 <br /> 1313 Sherman Street, Room 21 , Denver, CO 8023 <br /> rob.zuberC state.co.us I http://mining.state.co.us <br /> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:45 AM, W D Corley, Jr. <ajjc@att.net> wrote: <br /> Rob, <br /> Thank you for the notice regarding EFCI's TR43. I have a question and comment. <br /> If the water monitoring is terminated how would our concerns about Newlin Creek water loss be affected, <br /> particularly in the event that the Creek has a large flow with observable loss next year? Would termination <br /> automatically and permanently result in a resolution of this issue? <br /> In the past there has been posted a Bishop Brogdon report about their prediction for the filling of the Southfield <br /> Mine with water, and according to the Nov. 14, 2014, abatement request from Mr. Fanyo there has been <br /> another letter dated Nov. 11, 2014, from Bishop Brogdon about the same topic. I have not seen the latest <br /> letter. The previous report calculated the amout of coal and rock removed from the Mine based on the total <br /> area of the mine, the average height of the coal and rock, and the percentage of recovery in order to arrive at <br /> a value for the void in acre feet. Then they calculated the inflow of water based on observations made during <br /> the active mining. The main error that Bishop Brogdon have made is that they assume that the total mined <br /> void still exists. They have failed to consider the effect of subsidence and the result of the roof collapse and <br /> the floor heaving. Most of the void in the pillared panels no longer exists. The other problem with their <br /> analysis is that they assume that the water inflow prior to the pillaring has remained constant after the pillaring <br /> and after these panels were sealed. Since no one was able to observe the effect of the subsidence on water <br /> inflow where the over burden and possible perched aquifers above the pillared panels have been affected, it <br /> would seem difficult to assume that the hydrology has remained constant. <br /> Doug Corley <br /> hftps://mail.googl e.com/m ai I/u/0/?ui=2&i k=e29129fcb5&view=pt&search=i nbox&th=149cd98f69e3fdb5&si m l=149cd98f69e3fdb5 1/1 <br />