My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR13017
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
3000
>
APPCOR13017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:33:21 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:37:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984062
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
3/1/1984
Doc Name
ENERGY MINE 3 FILE C-84-062 ADEQUACY REVIEW
From
MLRD
To
COLO YAMPA 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.
/
13
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 />_12_ <br />M <br />4. CYCC is proposing to use fill material in the proposed permanent ponds. <br />There is no mention of the fill material or a materials balance including the <br />fill material in this section. Please see comment 6 under permanent <br />impoundments to the previous section. <br />Surface Mine Area <br />The applicant proposes to surface mine in a 16.2 acre area approximately 1 <br />mile south-southeast of the CYCC Middle Creek office. The area strip mining <br />method will be utilized. A temporary overburden stockpile will be developed <br />from the first cut, coal will be removed and stockpiled ,)ust north of this <br />temporary overburden stockpile. The temporary overburden stockpile will be <br />used as backftll for the final grading. <br />Regarding the overburden stockpile, a discrepancy exists as to the side slope <br />which is stated to be 1 1/4 H:1V on p. 2.05-34 in text and drawn as~.5H:1V on <br />Map No. 18. In terms of stability, 2H:~V side slopes would be more <br />acceptable. This is based upon previous spoil pile analyses which determine a <br />safety factor of 1.3 to 1.5. <br />1. According to the maps and cross sections, the Division concurs with the <br />calculated 250,000 BCY from the first cut. However, the 510,000 BCY ~ ~ <br />calculated as total overburden volume seems substantially low (t.e., only J <br />260,000 BCY remain for cuts no. 2 through no. 6). These volume calculations <br />should be adequately addressed, so that approximate material volumes are as ' <br />planned, and contemporaneous reclamatton (grading).1s efficient and effecttve. '/ <br />/ ~~~ <br />2. Another concern is for the Homestead Ditch which is located in the area to /.~ <br />be surface mined. The final backfi111ng and grading does not address whether VVV <br />or not this ditch will be replaced or whether 1t is presently diverted. <br />3. CYCC is proposing two permanent impoundments. The Energy No. 3 <br />impoundment is to be filled with 100,000 yd3 of spoil. Map 10 does not show <br />any material going Into the pond. Where will the fill material come from? <br />The spoil material going into the proposed permanent Impoundment needs to be <br />included 1n the material balance calculations and shown on Map 10. A <br />discussion of the backftlling and grading of the impoundments should be <br />included 1n the backfilling section of the permit application, as well as <br />Exhibit 3. <br />Bondlna - Rule 2.05.4(2)(b) and Rule 3 <br />1. The bonding calculations are based on four areas. These should be located <br />on a map and referenced in the calculations. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.