Laserfiche WebLink
Rule 2.05 - Operations Plan <br />1. The mine plan map must show the phases of mining that were <br />described in the narrative on page 68 of the application as required by <br />Rule 2.U5.3(2)(b). <br />2. The Division understands that the coal mined from the Twin Pines <br />No. 2. Mine will be processed through the tipple at the Twin Pines No. 1 <br />Mine which is also within the permit area. Because this loadout is part <br />of the mining operation, all of the applicable regulations must be <br />addressed (i.e. ~anduse - 2.04.3, Hydrology-2.04.7, Probable Hydrologic <br />Cgnsequences-2.05.6, Soils-2.04.9, Vegetation-2.04.10, Operations <br />Plan-2.U5, Ponds, Impoundments and Diversions-2.05.3, Roads-4.03, and the <br />Reclamation Plan-2.05.4). Information on the loadout must be provided in <br />the permit application for the application to be declared adequate. <br />3. If the applicant were to commit to the use of less than 5 lbs. of <br />explosives per hole in the construction of the mine facilities, the <br />application would be in compliance with Rule 4.08 on Blasting. <br />4. The haul road from the loading area to county road 71 was not <br />adequately addressed in the application. The information requirements <br />listed in Rule 4.U3.1 must be provided for this road. <br />Rule 2.U 5.4 - Reclamation Plan <br />1. Because of long term maintenance and hydrologic concerns the <br />Division has determined that the fill in Lewis Gulch is an inappropriate <br />postmining land use. Therefore, Twin Pines Coal Company must provide a <br />plan for removal of the fill and the appropriate bonding calculations. <br />RuleL.10 - Maps <br />1. The new permit boundary must be shown on all the maps within the <br />permit application in accordance with Rule 2.10. The Uivision has <br />assumed that the permit boundary as shown an the maps in the application <br />is actually the boundary for surface coal mining disturbances. If this <br />is the case, all of the areas to be disturbed have not been included <br />within the disturbed area boundary. The loadout was not included within <br />the area to be disturbed nor was the entire diversion ditch, which routes <br />undisturbed drainage away from the site, completely within the boundary. <br />Twin Pines must therefore revise the maps in the application to show (1) <br />the entire area to be permitted, and (2) the accurate disturbed area <br />boundaries includiny the loadout. <br /> <br />