PERMFILE65111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iii 999 5T ATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural ReSOUrces _ : ~ '; ~=~ ' '• r 1313 Sherman SL, Foom 215 + . •... ~~ ~ • - Denver, Colora(1o 80203 Nhane: (3031860-3567 -.•, .;.., t ., _ _ r ~,l `~.~-1"~~~ k`i.l .iL1 ..d F 'L..,< v. tr'~ DIVISION O F MINERALS hAA~(3031 83 2-81 06 j ;~~;~ I 4 ,_ _~~._..~ ~ee~ G E O L O G Y ~;' =. _ L ~- y RECLAMATION MINING•SAF ETY ,l , YYP~ ~ October 4 2001 ~ r'u^~t.u~ Bill Owens , Governor Todd J. Richardson Greg E. Walther Executive Director 65465 Sunridge Ct. Michael B. Long Montrose, CO 81401 Division Dnector Re'. Colona Pit, Permit M-1994-005, Resolution of Problems Associated with Irrigation Ditches. Dear Mr. Richardson, This is in response to your letter of concern dated August 19, 2001, which we received from Stuart Chappell on August 23, 2001, regarding the matter captioned above. I had postponed sending a written response to you ull[il I had obtained sufficient intormatioll about the various aspects related to your concerns. I must emphasize that the jurisdiction of this agency does not extend to all areas of the concerns in your letter, and the main responses in this letter are limited to the areas of our jurisdiction. In response to a letter of concern from Janice Becker, received on May 31, 2001, 1 inspected United Companies' Colona Pit on June 22, 200 L, during which [noted several problems to be addressed. To correct the problem of a ditch with an alignment different than the approved plan, United Companies submitted a technical revision which proposes to revise the type and location of irrigation ditches crossing their property, to be effective during the mining stage of the operation. The observations made during my inspection on June 22, 2001, fall both within and outside nryjulisdiction. Arnong the jurisdictional inspection observations, 1 noted that the rate of flow in the functioning ditch appeared roughly the same on the upstream end of the permitted area as the downstream end', that United Companies was not impounding water, or irrigating, or diverting water over the edge; there was no seepage of irrigation water from the ditch into the pit or down the hill to the east. United Companies was not conveying irrigation water across its site along an alignment or in a siphon stmcture in coltforrnance with their approved plan. The approved plan required that the water be delivered along the southwestern perimeter to a siphon around the northwestern side. The lack of these was the reason for one of the problems noted in the report. The water was entering the site via a new ditch configuration from the southeast and extending up the eastern edge of the site, finally exiting at the correct point. The ditch arrangement in use at the time of the inspection was functioning as a conveyance of water. United Companies' requested revision is to allow the use of a temporary alignment of a surface irrigation ditch on the southern portion of the pit property, but to include other aspects of the originally-approved plan. The irrigation water will be supplied from the same Ouray Ditch headga[e, enter the site at the formerly-approved southwest comer alld eaKend up t}le west side a short distance and, instead of entering a siphotl, cross the soutilem phase of the site to the existing ditch on the eastem edge, then extend up the eastem edge, and finally exit the site at the approved location on the northern edge (where it enters the Becker property). The original (1994) plan to install the siphon system is still to be carried out, however, they propose to implement it prior to when excavation will intercept the surface ditch, which is expected to be in t~vo or three years.