Laserfiche WebLink
I. Decision to Require Revision to the Permit <br />The Division has conducted a mid-term review under Rule 2.08.3, <br />2.06.2(a), 2.06.3(4), 2.06.5(3), 2.06.7(5) and 3.02.2(4). The review <br />included the Raton Creek Mine permit application, subsequent revisions, <br />stipulation responses, hydrologic monitoring data, past inspection <br />reports and on-site inspections. The Division finds that certain <br />revisions and modifications are needed to ensure future compliance with <br />the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act and the Regulations of <br />the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal (dining. The revisions <br />and modifications are identified below. <br />Ooerations Plan <br />An up to date permit boundary map should replace the existing map in the <br />permit application. This map should also show the current extent of <br />mining within the permit boundary. <br />Topsoil (Removal and Storage) Rule 2.05.3 <br />The topsoil pile #2 identified on Map if12 does not currently exist. If <br />it is still planned to be constructed in the future, it should be <br />identified as such on the map. Also, the small topsoil pile between the <br />diversion and refuse pile should be numerically designated and identified <br />on the proper map. Map (#7) also shows a topsoil pile in the vicinity of <br />the Helen portal. Since it does not exist it should be removed from the <br />map. <br />Reclamation Plan <br />On page 458 of the permit application, it is stated that overburden and <br />topsoil will be placed on the refuse as soon as each lift is completed. <br />The application also indicates that construction of the first lift had <br />been completed prior to January 1988. The Division requests an <br />explanation as to the reason the lift has not been reclaimed to date, and <br />a schedule for completion of reclamation. <br />Hydrology <br />1. A review of the past NP DES monitoring indicated that discharge <br />point 001 had exceeded discharge levels four times for total <br />suspended solids in the past 2 years. Even though explanations <br />were provided as to why the exceedance occurred, the Division <br />believes that modifications to the refuse drainage system and <br />additional maintenance of the sediment pond are necessary to remedy <br />the problem. <br />The Division feels excessive erosional features that were observed <br />during the on-site inspection of the facilities on the inslope of <br />the sediment pond and inlet from the refuse pile to the pond <br />contribute to the exceedance problem. At this time the Division <br />would like to offer a few options that might solve the problem in <br />the future. The operator should review these options and commit to <br />those (or others) which will aid in reduction of exceedances. <br />-2- <br />