Laserfiche WebLink
~~ <br />' n <br />Memo to Dan Hernandez -2- May 6, 1993 <br />and Steve Renner <br />Twin Pines was made aware of our concern in the January 13, 1993, Mid-Term. Twin <br />Pines' Mid-Term response, dated February 23, 1993, indicated that they felt they were <br />permitted to mine within 50 feet of the adjacent underground workings, and that the permit <br />boundary delineation was loosely defined through the following permit application <br />statement. <br />"Twin Pines No. 2 Mine will encompass an area of approximately 120 acres as <br />shown on Drawing No. TP-2. The area was defined and extrapolated from thirteen <br />test holes, and the extent of the abandoned mine workings to the east." <br />I would note, for the record, that Twin Pines is mining from an area that was extensively <br />disturbed by historic underground and surface mining, and that they restricted their permit <br />boundaries to exclude as much pre-mine disturbance as possible. <br />The EFCI situation is significantly different. First, EFCI had a lease problem at permitting of <br />the renewal. A stipulation to their permit required that they obtain a lease from the <br />Slanovich family prior to mining in Section 23, T20S, R70W, 6th P.M. They acquired a <br />lease on 1/4/91 prior to undermining the Slanovich property but after the affected area had <br />extended into the Slanovich property (8/20/90) (through angle-of-draw projectionsl. Mining <br />conditions deteriorated dramatically and the lease was terminated 1 /29/91. I received a <br />copy of these transactions on 2/8/93 following a verbal request to provide the information <br />to terminate the stipulation as part of the Mid-Term of the same date. <br />Second, the original angle-of-draw was assessed at 22°. I had Bruce Stover re-calculate it, <br />and it appears that during the May-October 1990 and May-October 1991 periods the angle- <br />of-draw was 29° in places. Following notification of our findings, they agreed to adopt this <br />worst-case angle-of-draw. When I asked them to re-plot the angle-of-draw as part of the <br />Mid-Term, they retreated from this position and indicated that the 29° is an anomaly. <br />I would recommend that we proceed with enforcement action despite the limited acreage <br />involved. I feel that permit boundaries are delineated to provide mining operations <br />information, as well as to protect landowners. However, Bruce Stover indicated that Jim <br />Pendleton recommended Mid-Continent be allowed to have angle-of-draw affected area <br />outside the permit area in remote areas that had no structures, without enforcement action, <br />and the Division proceeded to do so. <br />m:\oss\bjw\cwb <br />