Laserfiche WebLink
~~ ~ '` III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />" STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanmem of Natural Rewurces <br />131 3 Sherman 51.. Room 215 I+y~~ <br />Denver, Colorado 80207 II <br />Phone 0031866-7567 <br />FAX. (3071 8728106 <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />July 5, 1994 RESOURCES <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />Mr. Larry Mautz lames S. LOChhead <br />1938 Highway 133 E.ecuti ve Direcor <br />Paonia, CO 81428 Michael B. Long <br />Division Director <br />RE: Citizen Complaint; West Elk Mine; Permit No. C-80-007 <br />Dear Mr. Mautz; <br />Approximately one year ago, the Division received a letter from you <br />alleging that the effects of underground mining, and related <br />subsidence, on the part of Mountain Coal Company (MCC) had damaged <br />a spring and pipeline on your property. The Division has received <br />a letter dated May 13, 1994, which states that you would like to <br />withdraw your complaint as you have reached an agreement with MCC. <br />While the Division is glad you were able to reach an acceptable <br />agreement with MCC, the Division is required to make certain <br />findings that MCC did or did not violate the Colorado Surface Coal <br />Mining Reclamation Act and associated Rules and Regulations. <br />During the Division's inspection on July 13, 1993, we determined <br />based on our observations, that it was impossible to definitively <br />determine whether the spring was impacted by the landslide or <br />undermining by MCC. The landslide appears to predate the F seam <br />undermining. It has been shown that ground water wells impacted by <br />subsidence of underlying mine workings tend to initially dewater <br />and subsequently return to their pre-subsidence water levels within <br />a year or two. At the time of the inspection, the spring was again <br />flowing at an apparent rate of 2-3 gpm. The hillside for a <br />distance of approximately 50 feet downslope from the old developed <br />spring was moist and seeping water. The overall flow appeared to <br />total between 5 and 10 gpm. Approximately 100 feet downslope from <br />the original developed spring, a massive (approximately ten foot <br />thick) ledge-forming sandstone bed outcrops. A spring flow of <br />approximately 15-20 gpm was cascading from the upper surface of the <br />outcrop. The flow appeared relatively new, because there was no <br />evidence of erosion or staining of the sandstone. So if subsidence <br />did impact the flow to the point were it had ceased flowing, as you <br />observed in May 1993, it was not a permanent diminution of the <br />spring flow, because the flow was beginning to rebound. <br />Rule 4.05.15 states that any person who conducts surface or <br />underground mining activities shall replace the water supply of any <br />owner of a vested water right which is proximately injured as a <br />