My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR10277
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR10277
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:26:41 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:09:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
2/4/1985
Doc Name
MEMO SENECA II W P A R
From
MLRD
To
ANN BALDRIDGE
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.
/
6
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
Ann Baldridge <br />2.04.12 Prime Farmland Investigation <br />- 2 - February 4, 1985 <br />The applicant indicates on page 9-20, Volume V, that no prime farmland <br />exists in the mine area or the tie across haul road corridor area. <br />This is confirmed by letters from the Steamboat Springs S.C.S. district <br />office (contained in Appendix 9-S, Volume V), stating that "Routt <br />County and specifically the area included in the Routt County Soil <br />Survey area does not have any prime farm land". As such, the applicant <br />will need to submit with the permit application a request for a <br />negative determination which concludes that the land meets one of the <br />criteria of 2.04.12(2). <br />2.05.2 Operations Plan - Life of Mine <br />No comments. <br />2.05.3(5) Operations Plan - Topsoil Removal and Storage <br />No comments. This section appears adequate. <br />2.05.4(2)(b) Reclamation Plan - Cost Estimate <br />The reclamation costs section of the permit application indicates that <br />1987 will be the "worst case" year in terms of estimating the total <br />cost of reclaiming the Seneca II W mine during the initial 1985 - 1990 <br />permit term. This is based on an assumption that four spoil ridges <br />behind the active pit will require regrading. It is unclear, however, <br />as to whether the material volumes provided in support of this <br />assumption in Table 13-1 include the minimum of two overburden ridges <br />remaining behind the 1986 left open pit, the overburden remaining from <br />the initial box cut, the overburden remaining from the second box cut <br />opened in early 1987, and the maximum of four overburden ridges <br />situated immediately behind the active pit as mining operations <br />progress through 1987. In order for the Division to verify the worst <br />case assumption, the applicant will need to provide more detailed <br />information on the development of active pits and the movement and <br />stockpiling of overburden during the proposed permit term. <br />Additionally, the applicant should review the estimated push and haul <br />distances utilized in costing out the regrading work on page 13-66 of <br />the application. It appears that certain portions of the pit left open <br />at the end of 1986 will require longer scraper haul and/or dozer push <br />distances. <br />Page 13-69 of the Reclamation Plan portion of the permit application <br />details the estimated cast of removing surface material from haul <br />roads. It is stated that "After 3 feet of material has been removed, <br />scrapers will haul an additional foot of material to an open pit." <br />This section of the reclamation cost estimate must be amended to cover <br />the cost of removing the upper three feet of material. It appears that <br />the cost figure provided only covers the cost of using scrapers to <br />remove the lower one foot of material. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.