My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE72798
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
800000
>
PERMFILE72798
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:22:19 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:25:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981038
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
VOLUME 9A- Environmental Assessment Appendix Part 2 OF 3
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.
/
69
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
Intake Ventilation Shaft <br />~", <br />• 4:SC has indicated that the only nerr surface facility necessary <br />would be an intake ventilation shaft. A Tocation for the shaft was <br />indica*.ed on the mine layout submitted by the company but that site eras <br />subject to flood hazard according to U. S. Corps of Engineering ;,+aoping <br />of flood-prone areas along the North Fork River. Executive Crder 1198 <br />' and BLt4 Floodplain t-Tanageraent•Policy - Interim Guidelines require that <br />direct or indirect development of .100-year and 5U0-year flcodpiains be <br />avoided ~rhere practicable alternatives exist. Before approval of a <br />mining permit application submitted to OSt prior to r.;inin; BL'~1, USGS, <br />and OSP1 would examine the proposed site for its suitability. The <br />following discussion Trill dear generally with the impacts of placing a <br />vent shaft on the tract. <br />Although the shaft would be located on the surface of the proposed <br />tract, the ventilation required by 30{CFR): 75 for the production <br />1 evel s 41SC proposes ~;ri 11. force them to devel op two new air i ntal;e <br />sources regardless of tiie in;plementation of the proposed action. One <br />ventilation shaft Trill be placed on their existing leases and the <br />position of the second shaft would be on the new tract if it is leased. <br />Construction of the shaft would begin in 19E0. The actual boring <br />of the shaft would almost certainly be done by conventional drilling and <br />~~ blasting techniques and would generaie a maximu~;, of 10,000 cubic yards <br />of waste. The small amount of development waste could easily be <br />disposed of within the existing refuse disposal area, the iiorth Fork <br />Sanitary Landfill. It arould be trucked approximately 30 miles to that <br />site. <br />Construction of the shaft ~rould disturb a maximum 1.6 acres to <br />. allow for an access road and a 1C0-x-l0v^-foot gravel pad. ;+fter <br />consi:ruction is cor„pleted, a r'ence around the shaft, a grating over the <br />~- vent shaft, and the gravel pad would be installed at the site. ;io <br />• lights, potirer lines, or mechanized equipment would be needed at the <br />shaft. <br />A 12.5 Y,v power line and telephone line (on one pple) currently <br />lies south of Highiray 133. This power/telephone line nay need to be <br />relocated during the course of constructing the vent shaft. Relocation <br />of the line rrould disturb an area approxir,;ately 10 feet wide for a <br />distance of less than 0.25 Wile. An estimated naxinwm of 0.3 acre ti;ould <br />be disturbed by the relocation of the line. If relocation of the line <br />1S necessary, once a new right-of-way has been designed and a <br />right-of-way application filed, an environmental analysis mould be <br />prepared,on the proposed route. <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.