My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-06-22_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981033 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981033
>
2009-06-22_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981033 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:48:02 PM
Creation date
6/22/2009 11:05:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981033
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
6/22/2009
Doc Name
Proposed Decision & Findings of Compliance for RN5
Permit Index Doc Type
Findings
Email Name
JJD
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.
/
30
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
The Bear Coal operation is in compliance with the provisions of this section. <br />XIV. Protection of Underground Mining <br />This section is not applicable to the Bear Coal Company permit. <br />Xv. Subsidence Control <br />A. A description of the subsidence monitoring plan for the Bear No. 3 Mine is presented in <br />Section 2.05.6 of the Bear No. 3 Mine permit application. <br />Bear Coal Company has conformed with the requirements of the permanent program <br />regulations regarding subsidence control at the Bear No. 3 Mine. No structures overlie the <br />underground workings of the Bear No. 3 Mine. Potentially affected renewable resource <br />lands are limited to the aquifers of the Barren Member of the Mesaverde and the coal <br />seams overlying the B- and C-Seams extracted in the Bear No. 3 Mine and the springs <br />located in Lone Pine Gulch. The limited area of the potentially affected aquifers which <br />occur within the permit area, and the limitation of potential effects to the down-dip, <br />near-outcrop parts of these aquifers and coal seams, reduced the possible hydrologic effects <br />of subsidence upon the aquifers and the coal seams. Bear did not mine within the angle of <br />draw of the Lone Pine springs, and additionally used 50 percent coal extraction in areas <br />adjacent to these springs. The Division does not consider the Bear No. 3 Mine a threat to <br />either structures or renewable resource lands. <br />With the submittal of Permit Revision No. 2, the Division determined that Bear Coal <br />Company should submit a list of the various structures and renewable resources within and <br />adjacent to their permit area. Bear submitted the inventory and a subsidence control plan <br />(page 2.05-63d of the permit application) to restrict mining and associated subsidence to <br />areas that are well away from structures or renewable resource lands absent additional <br />subsidence monitoring. Upon further review, the Division determined that additional <br />subsidence monitoring would be required in areas that were previously not considered as <br />renewable resources and not identified as such by the operator. These areas were the <br />Mountain Coal ventilation fan access road, an ephemeral surface tributary to Lone Pine <br />Gulch, and the area overlying panels 31-38. This additional monitoring was addressed <br />through submittal of a technical revision as required by Stipulation No. 35. <br />The canyon walls of the North Fork of the Gunnison River are covered with numerous <br />landslide deposits. These mass movement features vary in age from ancient to modern. <br />Rotational slumps, translational, earthflow and debris-flow features are present on the site. <br />A study conducted by Rocky Mountain Geotechnical of the Bear No. 3 Mine property has <br />mapped numerous mass movement features. <br />The Division was concerned about reactivation of these features by subsidence of the land <br />surface resulting from coal extraction. An extensive study by Rocky Mountain <br />Geotechnical was completed in 1986 that addressed the relationship between subsidence <br />and the potential reactivation of slide bodies above the Bear No. 3 Mine. The study <br />concluded that the general mass movement mechanism was small, shallow slope failures <br />rather than large, deep failures. The report concluded that the landslide features above the <br />Bear No. 3 Mine were unstable and that failures would occur regardless of subsidence <br />effects. No subsidence effects were expected to occur in the critical toe area of any of the <br />slide bodies. Subsidence in these areas was to be controlled by split pillar removal. <br />24
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.