My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV93429
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV93429
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:14:46 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:31:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981018
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/16/2003
Doc Name
Adequacy Response & Request for Meeting
From
Blue Mountain Energy Inc
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
PR4
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
d) The Halandras landfill is already addressed in the permit. No other <br />`excavated' disposal site is proposed. Non-excavated disposal sites <br />potentially include al] shafts, road cuts, cuts at the D Portal, and slot <br />storage. Demolition debris or other wastes will be covered a minimum of <br />2' in a manner consistent with Rule 4.11.4. <br />e) No adverse impacts are anticipated in any of the potential disposal sites <br />due to placement of demolition debris. Stability should not be effected <br />considering the limited quantities relative to the quantity of fill involved <br />and rigid characteristics of the demolition debris. Placement of asphalt or <br />concrete material in the shafts, since some of this material would be <br />loaded in trucks regardless, would be less prone to settling than natural <br />materials. <br />Hydrology would not be adversely impacted since the reclamation fill <br />areas are well away from stream channels. In addition the materials aze <br />not of a character adverse to water quality. <br />Minimal impacts would result to post-mine contours. Even under the <br />worst case scenario where everything gets buried the contours would <br />change only a few feet, less than the error inherent to the engineering <br />design. The character and appearance of the fill would not change as a <br />result of the buried debris. <br />13. The language in Section V.L4.c has been modified to clarify where mulching <br />would be required (page V-42). As suggested by DMG a drill site with 33% slope <br />(3H:1V) was used as a basis to determine the need for mulch application. The <br />equating LS factor in the RUSLE equation for such a site is 5.87, assuming a <br />typical slope length of 100 feet and silt loam soils. Applying 2000 pounds per <br />acre straw mulch reduces the correction factor to 1.41. To achieve this same <br />correction factor without either mulching or extensive roughening would put the <br />maximum slope at 10%. Many factors are involved in determining the potential <br />for erosion on a given site and many options other than mulch are available to <br />reduce erosion. Therefore, use of the RUSLE equation will be used to determine <br />when mulching will be required for a given site. Mulching will be required when <br />the correction factor of LS x C x P is greater than 1.4. <br />Slo e % LS Mulch (C=0.24) Rou hness (P=0.15) LS x C x P <br />>33% (5.87) X 1.41 <br /><33% (5.87) X 0.88 <br /><10% 1.38) 1.38 <br />The timing of planting annual cover crops (stubble mulch) was also modified as <br />suggested by DMG. As stated in DMG's response the costs for mowing can then <br />be deleted. <br />January I5, 2003 3 Permit Revision #4 Comments <br />Blue Mountain Energy, Inc. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.