Laserfiche WebLink
.~ <br /> I ~~ I~II~~I~~IIIII~~ <br />STATE OF COLORADO RICHARD D. IAMM. Govemrv <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />D. Monte Pascoe, Executive Director <br />MIlVED LAND RECLAMATION <br />423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 839-3567 <br />David C. Shelton <br />Director <br />M E hf O R A N D U M <br />TO: Carol Russell <br />FROM: Jim Pendleton <br />DRTE: December 4, I9 <br />RE: Dorchester No. 1/Newlin Creek, et. al.'s "Agreement <br />Regarding Mining Of Barrier Pillars:'. <br />On July 28th.of this year Mr. Charles Silengo, Jr. of Dorchester Coal <br />Company contacted me by telephone to discuss the desire of Lbrchester <br />and Newlin Creek Mines to extract the barrier pillars along their common <br />mine plan boundary. Ne indicated that the agreement was pending between <br />the company's and the lands/mineral rights owners. I indicated that we <br />would approve this request for revision if "..,no material damage would <br />result from subsidence within the area previously protected by the barrier <br />pillars..." (see attached memo dated July 28, 1981). <br />I have reviewed the copy of the agreement between the two mining companies <br />and the two surface/mineral rights owners involved (Vento Family's Trustee <br />and C.F.sI., Corporation). The agreement appears to properly reflect the <br />facts as Mr. Silengo indicated them to me in our discussion of July 28th. <br />I recommend that we accept the agreement providing that the following <br />conditions are satisfied: <br />1) Your review determines that "no material damage would result from <br />subsidence within the area previously protected by the barrier pillars". <br />2) Dorchester and Newlin Creek both properly revise their mine plans. <br />3) Barrier pillar extraction is specifically liirtitedto common boundary <br />between two mine plan areas, as described within the agreement. <br />4) All parties involved understand that the Division does not concur <br />with the statement presented in paragraph six on page 5 of the agreement <br />regarding "projected subsidence line's" verticality. In our opinion the <br />angle of draw will not be vertical. Limited data available regarding <br />angles of draw observed in Colorado suggest that angle between 15 and 30 <br />degrees from vertical is much more likely. The permanent regulatory <br />program mine plans for these two mines will probably be required to_ include <br />subsidence monitoring programs designed to verify the actual angle of draw <br />at this location. <br />cc: Ed Bischoff attachment <br />Ue <br />