Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2, Mr. David A. Berry <br />The correct definition of a structure under the regulations is unclear. Even the definition <br />of "structure" in the Office of Surface Mining's proposed subsidence rules, which iy very broad, <br />limits the definition to "buildings, constructed objects and improvements." Pipes lying on the <br />ground and uninhabitable buildings have not been considered to be structures. The remnants of <br />previous use of an area should not be regulated as structures, as we do not believe it was the <br />intent of the rule to protect valueless artifacts of prior activity from subsidence effects. <br />4. Attached is a copy of Federal Coal Lease C-01 17192 and a consent agreement signed with <br />the previous landowner. Also attached is a copy of an agreement with Mr. Mautz to access his <br />property to the west. <br />5. The descriptions provided in question No. 5 of the Division's January 13, 1994, letter are <br />believed to be current and accurate. <br />6. The years of F-seam mining provided in question No. 6 of the Division's January 13, 1994, <br />letter are correct. More specifically, development mining in that area approximately occurred <br />during June 1989, and retreat mining during August 1990. <br />7. A portion of Mountain Coal Company's most recent B-seam mine plan is attached and <br />shows the mined and planned mining areas in the B-seam. <br />8. Jumbo Spring No. 3 pond was designated as spring No. 12 in the Woodward-Clyde <br />Consultants hydrologic investigation report completed in the late 1970's and was designated as <br />spring CR-12 in the B-seam technical revision (No. 55). Springs CR-12 and G-26a are in the <br />same vicinity, but are not believed to be the same resource. <br />9. Yes, MCC began monitoring the subject spring in September, 1993, and now refers to it <br />as G-26B. <br />10. No, spring G-26B was not located during the Woodward-Clyde Consultants hydrologic <br />investigation and was not included in the original Lone Pine Gulch monitoring program (which <br />was discontinued in 1986, due to landslide activities). <br />1 I. MCC continues to believe that neither the spring nor the "pipeline" has been injured by <br />mining in this area. MCC has mined under the subject spring and the overall subsidence (or <br />lowering) was approximately 2.25 feet (see Exhibit 60, Volume 12, for the calculated F-seam <br />subsidence). Of greater import, the area has and continues to slide. As stated previously, the <br />majority of Lone Pine Gulch has been mapped as "Qls" or landslide debris. Dames and Moore, <br />"Landslide Investigation Report", September 1993, concludes that "tlte North Fork of the <br />Gunnison River valley has a long history of slope instability" and "tlie fact that sliding is still <br />occurring is evidenced by fresh cracks , unvegetated scarps, and toppled vegetation associated <br />with recent movement.... These observations suggest that the area has had a long and I~robably <br />continuous history of slope movements.... Subsidence may be accompanied by surface cracking. <br />