My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV104678
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV104678
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:16:04 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 1:19:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/29/1996
Doc Name
ECKMAN PARK MINE MINE 1 AND MINE 2 PERMIT RENEWAL 3 PRELIMINARY ADEQUACY REVIEW
From
DMG
To
COLO YAMPA COAL CO
Type & Sequence
RN3
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.
/
4
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
<br />G81-071: RN-03. oar. Mr. Rick Mi14 <br />Permit page 780.136-3, and permit page 780-213(a) still refer to post-mining land use <br />as rangeland, or cropland. Please clarify that PMLU for reclaimed areas is no longer <br />rangeland, or cropland <br />The reclamation diversity standazd; "alfalfa shall not exceed 75% relative production, <br />and perennial grasses shall provide at least 25 % relative production", and "no single <br />species shall exceed 75 % relative cover.", is applicable to post-mining land use of <br />Pastureland. Please remove reference to the rangeland diversity standazd, as it is no <br />longer applicable. <br />8. The permit defines Tipple #1, Powerlines, and Water lines are "existing" facilities <br />which remain the liability of CYCC. Ls this correct? If so, these facilities should be <br />included in the CYCC bond calculation. <br />9. During the Foidel Creek midterm review it became apparent that there was no <br />reclamation wst allotted to the CYVCC Office building. The office is permitted <br />under the CYCC Eckman Park permit but, no reclamation cost was assigned to the <br />CYCC reclamation liability estimate. Please indicate if CYCC desires the <br />reclamation costs associated with the office building included in the CYCC <br />reclamation cost estimate or the Foidel Creek cost estimate. Please include a <br />current estimated cost for demolition and reclamation of this building. <br />10. Permit text on page 780-36 does not flow to page 780-36(a). <br />11. Page 780-37(a) depicts an SAE at the stoker coal loadout. The Division believes the <br />pond E re-design eliminated this SAE and furthermore, this SAE would be under the <br />TCC permit. Please clarify this discrepancy. <br />12. CYCC Map 41 shows the Pond T topsoil pile, (46-2) as having a volume of 4080 cy. <br />This map shows the pile near pond C (47-2) as 4000 cy. This volume is way too <br />lazge based on field observation. Please provide accurate volumes for these two <br />topsoil stockpiles and revise map 41 accordingly. <br />13. Map 42 of the permit indicates the topsoil pile near pond H (57-1) has a volume of <br />8,800 cy. As noted on the enclosed Coal Bond Compliance Inspection calculations, <br />the Division estimates the volume is closer to 2820 cy. This discrepancy should be <br />clarified and corrected as necessary. <br />14. Has completion information on wells 026-94M-Ol and 026-94M-02, which replaced <br />damaged wells north of Eckman Park, been incorporated into the permit? These two <br />wells should also be added to the hydrologic monitoring plan table. <br />15. Many of the SAE's discussed starting on page 780-207-3 should be eliminated from <br />the permit and transferred to TCCs permit. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.