Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ffl. Comments - Compliance <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of <br />ouservations made during tine inspection. comments also descriue any <br />enforcement actions taken during the inspection and the facts or evidence <br />supporting the enforcement action. <br />a gravel pack and 3/4" iron pipe which transported the water <br />approximately 1/2 mile across and downslope to some cabins. The <br />cabins (there are remnants of three) have fallen into disrepair and <br />literally collapsed. Mr. Mautz intends to rehabilitate the <br />buildings for use as an outfitter's cabin for spring, summer and <br />fall occupancy by hunters and naturalist tourists. The pipeline <br />has subsequently been broken in numerous locations as a result of <br />a large block glide landslide, whose current headscarp is <br />approximately a hundred feet downslope from the old spring. Viewed <br />from downslope near the cabin, the landslide appears to affect an <br />area of the slope approximately 200 feet vertically by 350 feet <br />horizontally. The ground is intensely cracked with extensional <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 <br />several decades. <br />During this inspection, the spring was again flowing at a apparent <br />rate of 2-3 gpm. The hillside for a distance of approximately 50 <br />feet downslope from the old developed spring was moist and seeping <br />water. The overall flow appeared to total between 5 and 10 gpm. <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 15-20 gpm <br />cascades from the upper surface of the outcrop. The flow appears <br />relatively new, because there was no evidence of erosion or <br />staining of the sandstone. <br />Based upon these observations it is impossible to definitively <br />determine whether the spring was impacted by the landslide or <br />undermining by Mountain Coal Company. The landslide appears to <br />predate the F seam undermining. <br />It has been shown that ground water wells impacted by subsidence of <br />underlying mine workings tend to initially dewater and subsequently <br />return to their pre-subsidence water levels within a year or two. <br />While we have no documented observations regarding subsidence <br />impacts upon springs, a similar scenario would be anticipated. The <br />spring might relocate to a lower location stratigraphically. <br />However, the flow would be expected to reestablish within a year or <br />two. It appears that this spring has followed that scenario. It <br />is anticipated that Mountain Coal's undermining within the B seam <br />may have a similar impact. However, the impact might be muted by <br />2 <br />