GENERAL38925 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Kathleen Welt -2- January 13, 1994 Mountain Coal Company 5. It is our understanding that Mountain Coal Company believes the only specifically adjudicated spring water right in Section 20 is referred to as the "Jumbo Spring No. 3 Pond," located in the NW%. NE%., NW'/. of Section 20, T73S, R90W. It is also our under- standing that the spring noted by Mr. Mautz as having been damaged, is located at approximately the boundary line between the NEy. and SE%., NW %a Section 20, T13S, R90W. Does this information correspond with your most recent and accurate information? 6. It is our understanding that the "F" seam mining under the spring in question occurred as follows: Development Mining - 1989 Retreat Mining - 1990 Is this correct? If not, please provide clarification. 7. Please provide a detailed schedule of "B" seam longwall mining (both actual and projected) for Sections 19, 20, and 21. 8. It is our understanding that monitoring locations G-26A and CR-12 are essentially the same location, and that Mountain Coal Company believes that these locations are the same as the adjudicated water right previously discussed and referred to as "Jumbo Spring No. 3 Pond." Is this correct? 9. It is our understanding that Mountain Coal Company now monitors (as of 1993) the spring referred to in Mr. Mautz's complaint, and that this station is referred to as G-26B. Is this correct? 10. Does Mountain Coal Company have any hydrology-related information for the spring (G-268) in question, or any other spring in the area that can be used to establish the hydrologic conditions prior to May 1993? 11. In a Mountain Coal Company letter dated August 26, 1993, the following statement is made: "Mountain Coal Company does not believe the spring of concern has been injured by mining in this area." We understand the situation to be as follows: Mining under the area of concern did create subsidence. We also understand that a pipeline has been broken. This may have occurred as a result of a landslide, subsidence, or both. Regardless of water rights status, a pipeline can be considered to be a structure and, if mining contributed to the damage of this feature, then repair may be required (4.20.3(2)(a)-. Please provide a detailed analysis which uses known mining sequence information, the known subsidence data, and any other pertinent information, to substantiate the Mountain Coal Company opinion that the spring has not been damaged by mining. Likewise, provide a detailed analysis which addresses the possibility that mining damaged the