My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR10775
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR10775
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:18 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:13:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981041
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
6/4/1982
Doc Name
POWDERHORN COAL CO SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL IN RESPONSE TO SUBSIDENCE CONCERNS FOR THE COTTONW
From
JIM PENDLETON
To
JIM HERRON
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Jim Nerron <br />-3- <br /> <br />June 4, 1982 <br />Conceptually, the company will first have to define the boundaries of the <br />alluvial bodies to be protected adjoining the Cottonwood and Rapid Creek <br />channels. Secondly, projection of those boundaries to the level of the coal <br />seam along the assumed 25° angle-of-draw will need to be completed. Thirdly, <br />the appropriate pillar configuration will have to be developed to assure <br />stability of the areas requiring protection. Fourthly, a test panel to be <br />mined early in the mine life will have to be monitored in order to confirm the <br />performance of the designed pillar configurations, including appropriate <br />hydrologic monitoring of any alluvial aquifers associated. <br />Subsidence Monuments <br />Subsequent responses by Powderhorn Coal Company have indicated that subsidence <br />monuments have already been installed within the Cottonwood lease tract <br />paralleling the Ute Water District raw collection pipelines. These monuments <br />are reported to consist of 7/8" diameter rebar driven approximately 18 inches <br />into the ground on approximately 300' spacings. I do not believe that these <br />monuments will resist normal traffic, wildlife or meteorological forces and <br />should be replaced by more substantial monuments. In addition, specific test <br />panels, if required to verify the subsidence control plan beneath the potentially <br />affected creeks, will require significantly more substantial and reliable <br />"caisson-type" monument installations. <br />/mt <br />cc: Dave Shelton <br />Fred Banta <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.