Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />• UTAH INTERNA T ZONAL INC. <br />BOX I87 -CRAIG, GOLORADO 81625 <br />1 <br />303.824-4401 <br />~ Hay 20, 1980 <br />?ir, John i?arda~aay <br />Office of Surface `fining <br />Brooks Toc:crs <br />1020 - 15th Street <br />Denver, CO 80202 <br />Dear 41r. Hardaway: <br />On Aptil 4, 1980, representatives of Utah International, Ines. Trapoer <br />Mine met in your offices caith :.r. Nike Bishop and ?Ir. Tom Pi{:e (OS?!) and <br />presented profiles and cross sectio^s cf a proposed drainage reconstruction <br />plan for our Enfield ?it area in Johnson Cu1ch. Gerald Zimpier and <br />Roger Funston of the Colorado :lined Land Reclamaition Division also <br />attended the meeting. As a result of that meeting, Pissrs. Bishop, Pike, <br />Funston and Zimofer visited Trapper `tine on April 14th to further <br />evaluate the proposed plan and develop a better understanding of the <br />• site conditions. At that time, OS:•( representatives received copies of <br />profiles and cross sections developed by the mine to assist the review <br />_ of the proposal. On Aoril °4, I mailed a letter to your office requesting <br />l ~• a finding ~.~ to the acceptability cf c,.r propc.ed drainage reconstruction <br />•~ yia[:. vc1 i•iay it~~, I again met with C~tssrs. Bisnop, Funston and Zimpfer <br />in your offices. At that time, tae arranged for a second site visit to <br />include a mining engineer from OS?I. <br />On 4fay 14, ~Ir. To.a Pike aid 41r. Jim Riddle (OS~i) visited Trapper Pline <br />with Roger Funston to determine what realistic options existed for the <br />~ drainage in question. During [hat visit, we suggested a modification <br />to our original reconstruction plan might be possible that eaould entail <br />an adjustment to the confluences of the tributaries to the main drainage <br />of Johnson Gulch. The enclosed maps and dracaings represent this revised <br />- plan for your consideration. <br />Conceptually, the plan anticipates that our Ashmore Pit will continue to <br />progress eastward and the sou[li end will effectively abut against the <br />north end of our Enfield Pit. This will produce a drainage profile <br />similar [o the preminc one from [hc south end of Enfield Pit Co [hc <br />north end of Ashmore Pit but will result in a slight steepening of the <br />drainage at the northern end of Ashmore Pit where the drainage passes <br />from [hc rccon[oured spoils [o undisturbed land. The degree of steepening <br />is sligl~[, being about 7.6: over 1200' compared to a 4.7% gradient before <br />disturbance (Ext,ibit C). None the less, as you well appreciate, [hc <br />physical effects of [his ci~ange arc uncertain and potentially troublesome. <br />To eliminate this potential, we arc proposing moving the confluence of <br />^) two tributaries to the main drainaEc to a poin~ below tlic steepened <br />• ~ section. 1'l~is will require [yini [lie tributaries brick into the main <br />'~~-' drainage approxim:~tcly 1400-1600 Ccet below the premining confluences. <br />OSr1 <br /> <br />