Laserfiche WebLink
iii iiiiiiiiniiiiii <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL~R ESOURCES <br />Davitl H. Gelch ee. Ezecu hve D,rector <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />DAVID C. SH ELTON, Dlractor <br />Richard D. Lamm •°`'~, <br />Governor .~ <br />4~ <br />September 13, 1984 ~ •~~"~ ~~ <br />L- L~. ~, <br />~ ~/ ^~ (~ <br />.% - <br />i <br />~ ~' ,~ ~~ <br />Mr. Scott Jones ` ~, <br />Snowmass Coal Company ~`' <br />P.O. BOx 980 •`\ <br />Carbondale, Colorado 81623 ~ <br />Re: North Thompson Creek Mine Permit C-025-81 <br />Inflow Pitigation Plan. <br />Dear Mr. Jones: <br />This letter is in reference to your plans to mitigate any depletions to North <br />Thompson Creek. On may 15, 1984 in response to your permit commitment,Bill <br />Tate submitted a report to Mined Land Reclamation Division on the status of <br />your mitigation plans. His response proposed to delay filing a plan far water <br />replacement until 1985 in order to allow for additional hydrologic data to be <br />collected. In the meantime Snowmass has committed to pumping 11,000 gpd <br />{12gpm) if a call on the water is made. <br />The State Engineer's office reviewed your proposal in June of 1984. The <br />Division agrees with your proposal and time frames. Water availability in the <br />Roaring Fork Valley is better than normal with the past year's snow and <br />rainfall. The Division also agrees that a fall mine inflow study of areas l0A <br />through 20 (or all areas) would be beneficial. <br />However, there was one concern noted with your plan. Your interum proposal to <br />replace 17,000 gpd or 12gpm during a call appears to be low. The Division has <br />reviewed your November 1983 and June 28, 1984 mine inflow studies. In Mine <br />No. 1 inflows from areas 5a-f appear to be ground water related and/or <br />connected with the shear zone. Areas 1,2, and 3 may he associated with the <br />creek (except for any inflows from the No. 2 mine). Areas 10-20 are <br />inconclusive. They are close enough to the Middle Thompson Creek as as to be <br />in communication. It i5 likely that they may be indirectly tied to the stream <br />or its alluvium via fractures or a groundwater source that is recharged by the <br />stream. A fall study of this area might aid in amore conclusive finding. <br />In Mine No. 3 areas 1,2, and 3 may be related to the creek but flows are not <br />large. <br />As in issuing permits, the Division`s policy is to assume worst case when <br />results are inconclusive. Our recommendation is that if a call for water <br />exists on Thompson Creek Snowmass would be responsible for 45 gpm or 64,800 <br />gallons per day. This figure assumes areas 10A-20 (roof discharges) are <br />causing a depletion, either directly or indirectly to Thompson Creek. <br />423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (30~! 866-3567 <br />