My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11665
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11665
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:32:02 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:22:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1994082
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
1/24/1995
Doc Name
YOAST MINE C-94-082 PERMIT APPLICATION PRELIMINARY ADEQUACY REVIEW
From
DMG
To
SENECA COAL CO PEABODY WESTERN COAL CO
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.
/
4
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
<br />4. On the same page, SCC states that areas which are severely compacted will be ripped on <br />the contour. Please include an estimated cost for this additional ripping. <br />5. SCC has not included a cost to final grade the pit. The Division typically estimates this <br />cost using production and costs for a motor grader. Please include this cost in the cost <br />estimate. <br />6. As noted in the PAR letter sent by DMG on January 20, 1995, if SCC proposes to leave <br />sections of haul roads as permanent access roads, land owner consent rs needed. Until <br />landowner consent is granted, SCC needs to bond for total removal of the haul roads. <br />Please provide the Divu-on with the necessary landowner consent, or include the total <br />wst of road removal (including culverts YAl-YA8 and YBl-YB3) in the estimate. <br />7. Topsoil Stockpile F is depicted on Exhibit 12-1, but "none" is noted in the volumes on <br />Table 25-2-6. Please clanfy for the Division why topsoil stockpile "F' will not be utilized <br />in the reclamation plan. <br />8. In the FPC Caterpillar spread sheets for topsoil replacement, it appears that an altitude <br />adjustment factor was not used. Please incorporate an altitude adlustment factor of .91 <br />in the job correction factor. <br />9. SCC includes plans for drainage channel reconstruction in the final reclamation plan. <br />Please include a cost for construction of postmine drainages in the estimate. <br />10. On Tab 25 page 5, SCC states that onlyy one sediment ppond will be in place in the worst <br />case disturbance yeaz of 1997 (Pond 10). Within the 5- eaz mine plan, Pond 11 will be <br />permitted. Since the area draining to Pond 11 is schedyuled to be mined in 1999, pond <br />construction may commence in 1997, as was the case at the Seneca mines. Please include <br />a cost to remove Pond 11 in the estimate. If SCC does not wish to post the bond amount <br />for Pond 11 at Qermit issuance, the Division can allow a stipulation to post the bond prior <br />to its constructron. <br />11. SCC proposes three diversion/collection ditches that will be constructed at the Yoast <br />Mine; diversion ditch #1 (facility area), diversion ditch #2 (into Pond 10), and diversion <br />ditch #3 (explosive storage azea). No cost estimate has been included to remove these <br />ditches. Please provide a cost estimate to remove these ditches. <br />12. In Tab 13, on pages 22 and 29, SCC states (under restoration of haul roads and access <br />roads) that terraces will be constructed as necessary to prevent excessive erosion and to <br />provide long term stability in cut and fill slopes. If these terraces will not be constructed <br />at the time of initial road construction, please include an estimate in the bond <br />calwlations to construct these terraces. <br />13. Please include information as to whether or not there are any light use roads leading to <br />water monitoring wells. If so, these roads need to be permitted and bonded in <br />accordance with Rule 4.03.3. Please include a cost estimate to reclaim these roads. <br />14. In Tab 13, on pa a 31, SCC states that roadbeds will be ripped and the topsoil <br />redistributed. It does not appear that ripping and topsoil redistribution tasks were <br />included in the estimate. Please include these tasks in the estimate. <br />15. SCC included costs to blast pit highwalls. For the 1994 Midterm review of the Seneca <br />II mine, it appeazs that more current cost were used for this same task. Blasting costs <br />nt. au~ua ena c. weoai r~~ry u, ~9vs <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.