APPCOR11270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STATE OF COLORADO RiC RnRD D. l Gov c~~m DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURC ES D. Monte Pascoe, Executive Director ~~~ I~~I~~I~~II~~I~~ MINED LAND RECLAMATION 423 Centennial Building, 7313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 David C. Shelton Director October 15, 1982 TO: Jim Herron FROM: Terry Zimpfer ~.n-~~ RE: Powderhorn Coal Company, Responses and Additional Information for Roadside and Cameo No. I Mines, Received October 4, 1982 I have reviewed Powderhorn's reponse to the issues raised in my August 31, 1982 memo to you and Brian Munson. Items 4 and 5 of my memo have not been addressed. By agreement with the company, these items wi1Z be handled as stipulations in the proposed decision document. The applicant has responded to items I, 2, and 3. My assessment of their response is provided below. Itam Nn. 1 The applicant has provided a verbal description of the Rapid Creek-Cottonwood Creek surface water system. This system is very complex, and could be better under- stood if the applicant would also show the complete system on a map. Upstream from the permit area, flow is regulated by a system of seven reservoirs and several ditches. It is uncertain whether the perennial flow observed at the Rapid Creek gauging station is natural or artifically maintained. The data base is insufficient to make that determination. No inflows or outflows have been identified to the stream flow system within the permit boundary. This reach of stream acts primarily as a conduit for flow to downstream users. Downstream from the permit area, several surface water users have been identified. This lower reach also receives inflow from the spillage of two water treatment facilities. However, the applicant's conclusion that the downstream users receive their water primarily from that spillage is not supported by any base- line data. In the absence of this support, the remainder of our review and our findings document should assume that downstream users receive their water from upstream flow. Ztem No. 2 The spring in section 2 was misidentified in the earlier submittals. The applicant indicates that it is actually a shallow alluvial well. Item No. 3 The applicant's response to this item was not sufficient for our required findings. Rather than requiring additional analysis from the applicant, permit review can be more expeditiously accomplished if we complete the assessment.