My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-06-21_REVISION - C2009087 (11)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C2009087
>
2018-06-21_REVISION - C2009087 (11)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/22/2018 8:22:12 AM
Creation date
6/22/2018 7:41:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2009087
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/21/2018
Doc Name Note
Proposed Decision & Findings & Cost Estimate
Doc Name
Proposed Decision and Findings of Compliance
From
DRMS
To
Peabody Sage Creek Mining, LLC
Type & Sequence
SL4
Email Name
TNL
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.
/
18
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
inspection was conducted in accordance with Rule 3.03.2(2). This inspection was not conducted within <br />30 days of completeness due to weather and ground conditions. Present at the inspection are as follows: <br />Tabetha Lynch, Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) <br />Miranda Blomquist, Peabody Sage Creek Mining, LLC <br />Christine Belka, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) #182 <br />Steve Freese, Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners <br />Alan Goldrich, Routt County Planning Department <br />The following items were noted as needing follow-up action prior the Division approving the SL -4 <br />Bond Release. <br />1. Removal of an area within the disturbance boundary from the bond release request, which had <br />no history of reclamation and does not appear to have been reclaimed. Coarse road gravel <br />was still present and topsoil did not appear to have been placed. No history or seeding was <br />found within the bond release documentation or previous Annual Reclamation Reports. The <br />Division requested that this parcel be removed from the bond release area. <br />2. Erosional down -cutting was observed along the right side of Road F 1 within Section 2. It was <br />requested that the operator place rip rap to prevent further erosion of this drainage channel. <br />Patches of toadflax were noted and referenced below as well as thistle, which were requested <br />to be mitigated at an appropriate time to effectively manage these weeds. <br />4. Two spoil springs were noted along SIIMP-6 down channel from stock pond T-29. The upper <br />spring had a small flow and some iron precipitate. The second was not flowing and almost <br />stagnant with no observed iron precipitate. The Division requested any additional information <br />the operator had available and consulted the Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) for any <br />additional comments relative to the spoil springs. <br />A response was received from the PSCM on November 28, 2017, which removed the land noted in item <br />one and revised the acreage within SL -4 from 422 acres to 418 acres. PSCM placed rip rap and check <br />dams throughout the down cut areas along Road F 1. This maintenance item was verified by the Division <br />during a complete inspection conducted on October 24, 2017. The areas of toadflax noted during the <br />bond release inspection were noted for the spring weed spraying contractor to be sprayed in the spring of <br />2018. <br />PSCM had no historical data or prior knowledge of the spoil springs noted during the bond release <br />inspection. These spoil springs had not been noted in historical spring surveys, indicating that they were <br />a new development. These spoil springs exist within the area draining to Pond 002. The water from <br />the flowing spring traveled about 50 feet before disappearing, the disappearance likely being the <br />result of some combination of percolation into the soil as well as evaporation. The constructed <br />drainage in which these spoil springs appeared has had spoil springs appear within it at various areas <br />in the past, as can be the nature of spoil springs to express and dry up as flow paths change within a <br />backfilled area. In a response received by the WCQD on December 13, 2017, WQCD did not have <br />concerns with releasing the spoil springs with SL -4, stating that the springs had coverage with Pond <br />C-2009-087 Page 5 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.