My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP45518
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP45518
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:48:16 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 10:37:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981025
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
10/16/1986
Doc Name
STIPULATION 2 C-025-81 MID-TERM RESPONSE
From
MLRD
To
SNOWMASS COAL CO
Permit Index Doc Type
MINE INFLOW REPORTS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />9 <br />he ~ t ~ o DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />*`~~"* MINED LANDD~RECLAMATION DI\ <br />' X876 ~ DAVID C. SHELTO N, Director <br />Richard D. Lamm <br />Governor <br />October 16, 1986 <br />Mr. Jim Stover <br />Snowmass Coal Company <br />P.O. Box 1354 <br />Palisade, Colorado 81526 <br />Re: Stipulation Number 2 C-025-81: Mid-term response <br />Dear Mr. Stover: <br />As we discussed in our phone conversation, long-term issues concerning <br />depletion to West Thompson Creek need to be resolved. I am enclosing copies <br />of past correspondence between Roy Cox (previously of our office) and the <br />State Engineer's office dealing with possible depletions to the creek. <br />In Hal Simpson's (Assistant State Engineer) memo to Roy Cox of <br />November 23, 1982, he states that "Even when mining is completed, <br />approximately .3 cfs will continue infiltrating into the mine causing <br />additional injury to Pioneer Ditch and other users." I can find no background <br />information on how this figure was derived. However, Snowmass needs to <br />respond to this issue, either by determining, based on recent data and <br />projected hydraulic head, whether this figure is accurate or if Snowmass <br />desires to accept this figure, how augmentation/replacement will be made. <br />The 45 gpm short-term replacement appears to have been based on a summation of <br />inflow areas 10 through 20 as presented in the 1983 No. 1 Mine inflow study <br />(enclosed). The Snowmass response to short-term needs for augmentation state <br />that a half year is needed to fill the No. 1 Mine or to March, 1986. At what <br />date were the pumps shut down on the No. 1 Mine? It is also stated that <br />filling of the No. 1 (dine may take as long as two years. This appear <br />reasonable due to the factor of decreased inflow as head in the mine <br />increases. This factor and required augmentation needs to be clarified. In <br />the Snowmass response, it is also stated that "we would expect the mine to <br />discharge at the portal beginning in March, 1987." Does this refer to <br />No. 1 Mine? If so, the Division's approval of the minor revision for portal <br />sealing was based on the seals being adequate to disallow perceptable leakage <br />at the surface. Any perceptable leakage could not be approved based on lack <br />of controlled drainage, questionable water quality and potential fill <br />instability. <br />=7.2.3 V.:~nrCertrtial 6wilding, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 <br />~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.