My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL35373
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL35373
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:23 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:18:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
7/16/1993
Doc Name
SUBSIDENCE INSPECTION CITIZENS COMPLAINT MT GUNNISON 1 MINE PN C-80-007
From
DMG
To
JIM PENDLETON
Permit Index Doc Type
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
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
K <br />Memo to Christine Johnston <br />Mt. Gunnison No. 1 Subsidence Inspection <br />page 2 <br />alternating graben-like linear troughs and linear horst-like linear <br />mounds. The troughs show varying degrees of debris, sediment and <br />vegetative infilling which suggest the activity has spanned several <br />decades. The landslide disruption appears progressively younger <br />towards its upslope extremity. <br />On July 13, during our inspection, the spring was again flowing at <br />an apparent rate of several gallons per minute (gpm). The slope <br />for a distance of approximately 50 feet downslope from the old <br />developed spring was moist and seeping water. The overall flow <br />appeared to total between 5 and 10 gallons per minute. <br />Approximately 100 feet downslope from the original developed <br />spring, a massive (approximately ten foot thick) ledge-forming <br />sandstone bed outcrops. A spring flow of approximately 15 to 20 <br />gpm cascades from the upper surface of the outcrop. The flow <br />appears relatively new, because I detected no evidence of erosion <br />or staining of the sandstone. <br />~F~ased: upon these observations it is impossible to definitively, <br />~+-p~mmT*+a whether the spring was impacted by the landslide or <br />~~Eibsidence. The landslide appears to predate the "F" Seam <br />undermining by West Elk Coal. Regardless of the reason's for its <br />interruption in flow, and luckily for Mr. Mautz, the spring appears <br />to have reinitiated flow similar to its historic 0.05 cfs (21 gpm) <br />decreed domestic right. <br />According to the mining maps, portions of Section 20 have been <br />undermined within the "F" Seam. Similar portions of Section 20 are <br />projected to be undermined by workings in the "B" Seam in 1995 or <br />1996. Our examination of the permit maps addressing spring <br />occurrence and hydrologic monitoring discerned no springs indicated <br />to exist or intended to be monitored within the immediate vicinity <br />of the spring. .~Ir.. Ma{it~ agreed to provide a copy of the' 0.05 cfe <br />`decree for the spring in question.~i'~e subs~.dence inventory also <br />ha-#3ed to address the dilapidated structures in Lone dine E<ulch as <br />~i1. <br />In accordance with Rule 4.05.15 of our regulations; "Any person who <br />conducts surface or underground mining activities shall replace the <br />water supply of any owner of a vested water right which is <br />proximately injured as a result of the mining activities in a <br />manner consistent with applicable State law." ~hsrefare, I; <br />¢anclude that Ae3t Elk Coal would be responsible for replacing Mr. <br />t-~=s-decreed spring mater supply, if it were permanently damaged <br />`--..,Q;.TM!~_Aated. I am not surprised that a spring and the <br />dilapidated structures could have been overlooked in the early <br />1980's permitting baseline collection and inventory. I am somewhat <br />surprised that the decreed water right for the spring was not <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.