PERMFILE72509 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Depanmenl of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman 5t., Room 216 Denver, Colorado BO203 Phone: (307) 866-3567 FAX: (3031832-8106 October 4, 2001 nT A Tl"' III IIIIIIIIIIIII III F 999 "~`-~ ~1~-~L9~~_~a~S~. Cfllr'~~~dl.~/{..C~~ ' COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS GEOLOGY RECLAMATION MINING•SA FETY Hollis Hasty and Ardeth Hasty 21666 Highway 550 South Montrose, CO 81401 Re: Colona Pit, Permit M-1994-005, Kesolution of Problems Associated with Irrigation Ditches. Dear Mr. and Ms. Hasty, Bill Owens Governor Greg E Watcher Eaeculive DireUOr Michael R. Lung Division Uiretlor This is in response to your letter of concern dated July 24, 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 until I had obtained sufficient information 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, I inspected United Companies' Colona Piton June 22, 2001, during which I noted several problems to be addressed. To correct the problem of a ditch with an aligmnent 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 [he operation. The observations made during n1y inspection on June 22, 2001, fall both within and outside my jurisdiction. Among the jurisdictional inspection observations, I 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 irngating, 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 imgation water across its site along an alignment or in a siphon structure 63 conformance with their approved plan. The approved plan required that the water be delivered along the southwestern perimeter to a siphon around [he 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 arangement 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 aligmnent of a surface irrigation ditch on the southem 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 headgate, enter the site at the formerly-approved southwest comer and extend up the west side a short distance and, instead of entering a siphon, cross the southem phase of the site to the existing ditch on the eastern edge, then extend up the eastern edge, and fmally 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 s}stem 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.