Laserfiche WebLink
~., Q ~ ~~ , <br />1 ~~' •t •~ <br />.~ <br />~~ _ ul , <br />.}` •~ <br />'r ~ yY ~ `1' - 5 - <br />.,.-' ` \~ <br />~,~~}r ,K'oads - Rule 4.03.1(1)(f)(i and ii) and 2.05(1)(a)(i) <br />~rf R 7.y t1;~ :Sy~t c,~•~~ppl~lelN rr~;o1/e <br />~ 1 e ; CYCC requests to leave a k~arro~ed version o the main haul road to <br />` benefit the post-mine land use of rangeland. Typical rangeland access <br />`\ ~ '; roads are 10'-15' wide, and a road width of those dimensions would be <br />~' acceptable to the Division. Plans for leaving haul road fills would <br />~ `~~ ~ seem to be inappropriate to the post-mining land use and the intent of <br />`~~ ~~ ~~ reclamation regulations. Please re-write pages 2.05-9 and 2.05-10 to <br />reflect these changes. <br />Sedimentation Ponds - Rule 4.05.6 <br />Pond A <br />I ~ ~~`"-~ <br />'$ ~ <br />Please justify the utilization of Pond A as the primary sedimentation <br />pond for the eastern panel, given its distance from the disturbed area <br />(Rule 4.05.6(1)(b)). <br />2.~ Please submit an updated map which shows the worst case disturbance <br />scenario for the Pond A drainage, should you continue to utilize it as <br />part of the drainage design. <br />U Ponds <br />The Division has questions about the weighted average runoff values for <br />sedimentation pond system "U", pages 5-15. <br />p`!~~ a. In which year of operation does the worst case runoff occur? The <br />Division assumes that this will happen during the second permit <br />term and that these ponds are designed for the life-of-mine. <br />Please submit a map outlining the sub-areas classified as <br />disturbed, regraded, reclaimed and undisturbed for worst case <br />~ conditions. <br />0~ b. What assumptions were used in assigning the curve numbers for <br />regraded and undisturbed lands? <br />0 <br />4~. 0~ It appears that the primary spillway for Pond U-1 is inadequate to <br />discharge the 10 year-24 hour storm event without utilizing the <br />emergency spillway. This is not an acceptable practice under <br />Rule 4.05.6(3)(c). Please re-design the riser to accommodate the peak <br />f]ow discharge or submit hydrographs to justify the existing design. <br />Both Drainage Systems <br />Q pw. The calculations for the U-Pond system and Pond A did not appear to <br />take into account any projections for spoils spring discharge. Please <br />modify the peak inflow values to accommodate projected peak spoils <br />discharge given the acreage of disturbance in the two tittle Middle <br />Creek tracts and your experiences in Eckman Park. <br />