Laserfiche WebLink
Wes[ Elk Mine <br />2. About this time, the south main, consisting of flour entries, was driven southward in an attempt <br />to turn another set of entries either east or west. Sudden, lazge outflows of water and methane <br />were encountered in the development entries. The volumes were lazge enough to force the <br />company to remove the mobile loaders and shuttle cars and replace them with shaker conveyors <br />in order to continue development. <br />Water and Methane Drainage After Oliver No. 2 Mine Closure <br />Seals, consisting of a double row of cinder blocks, were installed 75 to 150 feet north of the <br />northern entry of 1~` West entries of the Oliver No. 2 Mine in December, 1953 (Boyd Emmons, oral <br />communication, November 6, 1996). They were installed to seal off the water and methane rnming <br />from various areas of the mine. Appazently these seals did not completely seal off either water or <br />methane under pressure because water was observed draining from the Oliver No. 2 Mine in the <br />eazly 1970's and the methane was detected with a methanometer above the portal area (Dunntd <br />1976, p.33). Although no water was observed in the Oliver No. 2 portal area during a field <br />inspection in October 1996, water may be flowing beneath the road grade of State Highway 133, <br />According to Bob Barrett, Grand Junction District Geologist for the Colorado Department of <br />Transportation (CDOT), a drainage system (cobble and geotechnical fabric) was installed within the <br />drainage azea of the unnamed drainage west of Box Canyon to channel the numerous springs that <br />were encountered during highway construction in 1980 (oral communication, Bob Barrett to John <br />Rold, November 14, 1996). The springs encountered during construction of Highway 133 ate <br />thought to reflect flows emanating from the Oliver No. 2 Mine. <br />S In addition to observations of flows from the Oliver No. 2 Mine portal in the 1970s, additional <br />observations were made regazding surface flows in the Sylvester Gulch drainage. One particuhrr <br />observation, (Bill Bear oral communication, 1972) was that there was a substantial decrease in <br />surface flow (and dewatering of a beaver pond) from the fast east fork of Sylvester Gulch above its <br />confluence with the North Fork. There has been speculation that this apparent decrease in flow was <br />the result of Oliver No. 2 mining activities, however, the reported decrease in the flow during the <br />1970s is puzzling for two reasons: <br />1. The healing and sealing potential for stream channels discussed in Section 2.05.6 conflicts with <br />short-term stream diversion not to mention stream diversion after 20 years; and <br />2. No water was observed upstream from the azea where the beaver ponds were located, beyond <br />where the Oliver No. 2 mining could have had an impact. Consequently, there was not a <br />perennial flow for the beaver habitat in the canyon when Mr. Dunmd observed the beaver <br />ponds in the mid-1970s. It is not known what happened to the source of water to the beaver <br />ponds; the beaver had already moved out. <br />MCC now owns the water right to the first east fork of Sylvester Gulch-the water right previously <br />owned by the Beaz family. Therefore, the puzzling decrease in flow (perhaps the flow was <br />intercepted by a permeable formation or natural fractures exposed by stream erosion) should only <br />concern the current owner of the water right. <br /> <br />2.05-I28 Revised November 1004 PRIG <br />