GENERAL46203

• Permit No: C1981028
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 10/8/1981
• Doc Name: Draft Copy of Revised Decision Documents
• Permit Index Doc Type: Findings
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

-IS-
'y XIX. Roads (2.05.3(3), 4.03)
A1ost roads at the Keenesburg mine have beer. constructed wider the applicants
existing MLRD permit. The applicant has provided detailed desicns on all roads
to meet the requirements of Rule 2.05.3(3)(c)(i) and the applicable performance
standards of 4.03. A discussion of the uses, construction, rnaintanence, and
reclamation of all roads can be found in volume 1, pages 9E,°9,314,118 and
121. Detailed designs including read profiles and cross-sections can be found
in Volume 1, Appendix N, Maps N-6,N-7,N-8,R-9 and N-10.
The haul and access road drzinaae designs dcf not compiu M•itr, some of the design
standards of Rule 4.03. Specifically, Ruie 4.03.i(4). F.'owever, since the roads
are existing structures they need or.1y comply with the perfcrmance standards of
Rule 4.03. The applicant has requested a variance from the design road drainage
requirements of section 4.03.1(4)(a) and 9.03.2(4). The basis of the request
is that little or no surface runoff occures as a result of a ten year event
(documented in volume 1, page 45-50). in addition, the operator has paved
the main haul road to reduce the amount of dust and water erosion off the road
surface. Although the paving will increase runoff, the roads are veru level
and will not result in large volumes of rw~cff that could form channels
adjacent to the road. To date, MLRD site inspections have not identified any
road drainage problems associated with the mine. Based on the above facts,
the Division hereby grants a variance from the road drainage requirements of
Rule 9.03.1(4) and•4.03.2(4) in accordance with 4.03.1 (e) and 4.03.2(e).
The road base construction, surfacine, stabilization, maintanence, operation,
and reclamation plans for the roads have been reviewed by Lhe Division and are
found to be in compliance with both the design and performance standards of
Rule 4.03.1, 4.03.2, and 4.03.3. The proposed operation is in compliance.
XX. Bonding (2.05.4(2)(b))
The reclamation costs section of the permit application, found on pages 122-
- 129, volume 1, has been reviewed by the Division. She proposed operation is
in compliance. The total cost for reclai:,.in0 the proposed operation has been
calculated by Coors EnerOy Companu to be 51,522,9E9.00.
XY.I. Sealing of Drilled Holes and Underground Gpenings (2.05.4(2)(0), 4.07)
The Division has reviewed information or. sealing of Dri=led Holes as described
in the "Notice of Intent to Conduct Prospectinc Operations" dated June I9, 197E.
This document is on file at the Division office. No underground openings are
anticipated to be encountered. The proposed operation is in compliance.
XXII. Subsidence (2.05.6(6), 4.20)
Since this is a surface strip mine the reouirements of the subsidence sections
are not applicable.
es of Mi
S.z7, S.zs, 4.
This is a surface strip mine operation. Provisions pertaiti ng to mountaintop
removal, steep slope mining, undergrow~d mining adjacent to surface operations,
and angering are not applicable because none of these activities are planned.