Laserfiche WebLink
S <br />GBl-071: RN-03. oer. Mr. Rick Milk 2 <br />An accurate accounting of the permitted and disturbed acreage is essential. In <br />consideration that the mine is proceeding with various phased and final liability bond <br />releases, proper accounting of this information becomes even more crucial. <br />3. The permit contains a determination of the consequences the operations could have <br />on the quality of water in surface and groundwater systems. This information is <br />found on pages 780-144-14 through .780-144-21 and 780-165 through 780-166 <br />(groundwater) and 780-144-24 through 780-144-27 and 780-145 through 780-148 <br />(surface water). <br />Certain portions of the permit appeaz to need updating. On page 780-144-26, the <br />permit discusses the results of a salt loading analysis included in a report entitled <br />"Backflll Hydrologic Evaluation, Eckman Park Mines". The text states "the results <br />indicate that backfill discharge at the Eckman Park and Mine #1 may eventually <br />cause an increase in TDS in Trout Creek of about 122 mg/1". A review of Table 11, <br />however, indicates that this figure was apparently based in part on a projected <br />backfill discharge flow rate of 0.40 cfs. The data from table 11 should be reviewed <br />by the operator, and the values for backfill discharge flow rate, TDS, and flow- <br />weighted TDS should be revised if necessary to reflect current conditions. The <br />permit text should then be revised as well. <br />4. Colorado Yampa Coal Company submitted Technical Revision No. 136, on July 14, <br />1994, to retain pond M as permanent. The Division found the application <br />incomplete on July I5, 1994, and notified CYCC, on July 21, 1994, to resubmit the <br />application with sufficient information to address all parts of Rule 4.05.9(1), <br />Permanent Impoundments. Additional information regarding Pond M was <br />submitted by CYCC on May 11, 1995. This additional information was not sufficient <br />to deem the revision complete. If CYCC chooses to retain the pond as permanent, <br />it would be appropriate to resolve the permitting of this pond at this time. If pond <br />M is not desired to be retained as permanent, TR-136 should be withdrawn. <br />5. Page 780-32 states CYCC retains reclamation liability for ponds A, D, and F. Is this <br />accurate? Pond A is approved as permanent in the CYCC permit. The Division <br />understands that ponds D and F will be used by TCC long after CYCC has been <br />entirely bond released. Drainage from the shop/warehouse complex of TCC reports <br />to pond F and pond D takes TCC underground mine discharge. This information <br />should be corrected as necessary. <br />6. The permit describes a topsoil windrow at the substation pad and access road near <br />'Trudy's Corner". It approximates 1000 cY of topsoil. What map depicts this topsoil <br />resource, is it marked in the field, and does it exist in the field? <br />