My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV05242
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV05242
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:03:41 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:23:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982055
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/8/1993
Doc Name
ENERGY FUELS MINING CO RATON CREEK MINE PN C-82-055 PERMIT RENEWAL RESPONSES
From
ACZ INC
To
MLR
Type & Sequence
RN2
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.
/
7
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
January 1993 Raton Creek Mira ' Adequary Responses ~ 3 <br />portion of the existing refuse pile and placement of approximately 22,000 ry of borrow <br />material from the azea between the raw coal stockpile and Animas pottal area to backfill <br />the Animas portal and other minor cut areas near the shop building (Ref: Pg. 493 of <br />approved permit). The approved permit did not reflex reclamation of other abandoned <br />mine portals and associated highwalls within the permit area. <br />EFMC, in response to the Division's original renewal comments, and as part of an <br />overall review of mine closure requirements, reevaluated final backfilling and grading <br />plans and requirements. The objective of this review was to make appropriate <br />adjustments in the plan to reflect existing site conditions, minimize additional surface <br />disturbance, and develop a postmining topographic configuration which meets <br />requirements for long-term stability, effective drainage, and compatibility with the <br />proposed postmining land use. The resulting revised reclamation plan, submitted in <br />conjunction with EFMC's 8/92 Renewal Adequary Responses, represents a balanced <br />approach which effectively addresses all of the noted components. <br />EFMC recognizes the specific regulatory provisions cited as they relate to highwall <br />elimination. The Division does however, appear to have some discretionary authority <br />relative to both timing and extent of highwall elimination as provided by Rules <br />4.14.1(1)(d), 4.14.2(1), and 4.14.2(2). The following factors should be considered relative <br />not only to regulatory language, but also regulatory intent and practical environmental <br />and operational considerations: <br />• Many of the abandoned highwall segments are located in areas where <br />current access is either non-existent or very limited. Establishment of <br />access for backfilling and grading may require signifipnt additional <br />disturbance <br />• The original terrain in this azea was relatively steep, with natural slopes <br />at gradients frequently above the angle of repose for backfilled material. <br />Given this consideration, backfilling and establishment of consistent slopes <br />may require extensive grading and disturbance of upslope, downslope, and <br />adjacent areas. These activities could result in additional erosion and the <br />potential for slope stability problems <br />• Many of the old portals have collapsed and are currently stable with well <br />established drainage and vegetative growth <br />• Natural landforms, including rock outcrops, ledges, drainages, and <br />associated slope breaks occur throughout this area and are similar in <br />configuration to the minor highwall segments which would remain <br />following completion of the activities outlined by the mos[ recent <br />reclamation plan submittal (8/92) <br />The overriding question which should be answered for each of the remaining highwall <br />segments is whether or not additional backfilling and grading will substantially reduce <br />potential associated haurds or result in enhanced stability, drainage, or utility relative <br />to the proposed postmining use. If full highwall reduttion does not result in significant <br />potential benefits, reasonable intermediate alternatives (ie: approval as cut/fill terraces, <br />A:~P56RFSP.LTR <br />01/05/9) ]pm ACZ /nc. ' P.O. Box 774018 'Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80477 ' (303J 879-6260 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.