My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV00469
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV00469
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:58:08 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 8:46:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981041
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
2/7/2003
Doc Name
Adequacy Issues (RN4)
From
DMG
To
Snowcap Coal Company Inc
Type & Sequence
TR42
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.
/
8
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
12c. The operator did not provide a plan for excavation of accumulatetl sediment or an <br />alternative plan for stabilization of the Coal Canyon Drainage segment between the Haul <br />Road 4 crossing (the large double culverts) and the Pond 13 spillway channel as <br />requested. Rule 4.05.3(1)(e) requires that diversions and ephemeral streams must be <br />designed, located, constructed, maintained and used to minimize adverse impacts to the <br />hydrologic balance, and to be stable. Rule 4.03.1{1){a) requires that "...post-mining <br />conditions of haul roads...will control or prevent erosion and siltation.. ". Channel <br />erosion has initiated at the lower end of the segment, due to a nick-paint in the channel <br />apparently formed by sediment build-up associated with the former Haul Road 2 channel <br />crossing. In response to the original adequacy item, the operator stated that their <br />preference would be to allow the channel to reach geomorphic stability and see if scour <br />protection is required below the large double culverts. Because the channel segment is <br />not stable, and because the instability is associated with mining and reclamation <br />operations that modified the channel, the operator's proposed approach tloes not comply <br />with the cited regulations. <br />Please submit a plan for excavation of accumulated sediment from the channel <br />segment, to establish a relatively uniform gradient through the channel segment, <br />consistent with the channel gradient immediately downstream of the Pond 13 <br />outlet, or an appropriate alternative plan for preventing accelerated channel <br />erosion associated with the nick-point. The plan should include appropriate scour <br />protection at the upper end, below the outlets of the large double culverts. The <br />plan should include channel cross sections and profiles, and other information as <br />necessary to demonstrate compliance with Rule 4.05.4. <br />In addition, please assess the volume and quality of material that could be <br />excavated from the channel segment with respect to its potential use as a source <br />of subsoil or topsoil for future reclamation. <br />12d. The SEDCAD design for the proposed ephemeral channels indicate that the channels <br />would be stable, with adequate capacity if installed as designed, however the stable <br />design incorporates extensive use of riprap. These channels would be constructed to tie <br />in with upland native ephemeral channels following removal of the existing temporary <br />diversion ditch. <br />4.05.3(6) states that, when a temporary diversion of an ephemeral stream is removed, <br />the ephemeral channel "shall be reestablished to functionally blend with the undisturbed <br />drainage above and below the area to be reclaimed". "Functional blentling" would <br />logically incude channel dimensions that approximate premining conflguratlon, with <br />provision of geomorphicaUy appropriate meander patterns and gradient, such that the <br />channel would remain in dynamic equilibrium with the larger drainage system. These <br />concepts are spec~cally addressed in Rule 4.05.4(4) for ephemeral drainages with <br />watersheds of at least one square mile. This rule further specifies that art~cial structural <br />controls not be employed unless approved by the Division. <br />The proposed channel designs incorporate extensive use of riprap (artificial structural <br />control) throughout their lengths. Flow velocities in these channels are relatively low, and <br />it would appear that modification of the designs through some combination of increasetl <br />flow length (incorporation of meanders), slightly modified channel geometries (minor <br />widening), excavation to "incise" the drainages in their steep upper reaches, vegetative <br />stabilization, and selective use of riprap, would be practicable. The resulting land-form <br />would more closely mimic natural conditions, and the reconstructed drainages would <br />functionally blend with the native channels, with lesser reliance on artificial structural <br />controls. In design and constructign of the channels, it is critical that flow from the upland <br />drainage chutes be fully captured by the reclaimed drainages. Some excavation of native <br />ground may be necessary to ensure that the redamatiort channels are properly tied into <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.