My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL50503
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL50503
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:37:00 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 6:01:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981044
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/16/2003
Doc Name
Proposed Decision & Findings of Compliance for RN4
Permit Index Doc Type
Findings
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.
/
41
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
Section B - Findinss and Specific Approvals Required by Rule 4 <br />Section 2.07.6(2)(m) requires that the Division make all specific approvals required in Rule 4 <br />prior to approving a permit. The following findings and specific approvals aze required by Rule <br />4. <br />I. Roads -Rule 4.03 <br />The applicant presents a discussion of roads in Section 4.03 of Volume 2 of the permit <br />application. Road locations and designs are presented in Exhibit 17 and on Map 27. <br />The Division reviewed these designs for compliance with the design and performance <br />standazds of Rule 4.03. <br />There aze approximately 1.8 miles of haul road, 3.0 miles of access road, and 2.5 miles <br />of light-use roads. Most roads found at the Eagle Mines aze located on gentle slopes of <br />less than 5 percent grade. Only light-use roads which give access to monitoring sites aze <br />found on steeper slopes. The operator is not proposing any new roads. All roads are <br />existing structures. <br />The design report prepared by C.T.L. Thompson (Exhibit 17) demonstrates that the <br />existing roads were designed with sound engineering practices and aze structurally <br />stable. For the purpose of examining road cuts and road embankment conditions, the <br />operator looked at the worst-case road segments at the mine. <br />The roads at the mine were designed for proper road drainage as well as compatibility <br />with the sediment control system. A few access and light-use road segments did not <br />require roadside drainage ditches to collect runoff due to the fact that the grade is only <br />two to five percent. An example is the access road on the southeast edge of the surface <br />facilities area. Roads were pitched to allow sheet runoffto disperse into adjacent <br />grassland. <br />On steeper roads, roadside drainage ditches aze used to collect runoff and safely <br />dischazge it. Much of the runoff from the roads is passed through a sedimentation pond <br />to decrease suspended solids. Culverts are provided at intersections with drainage <br />channels so as not to interfere with the natural stream flows. <br />The operator's design for the road bridge that crosses the Williams Fork River indicates <br />the bridge will safely pass the river flow resulting from a 100-yeaz storm event. <br />One vaziance from the road drainage requirements is granted to the applicant. Rules <br />4.03.1(4)(e) and 4.03.2(4)(e) contain specific requirements for culvert spacing to <br />dischazge water at periodic intervals from the mine roads. The Division has not required <br />RAG Empire Corporation to adhere to these spacing requirements. The roads aze <br />existing structures built before this requirement was implemented. The roads either <br />discharge water as sheet flow or into a roadside ditch that has been designed to handle <br />the runoff generated by a 10-yeaz, 24-hour precipitation event. For these reasons, <br />additional road drainage culverts were not required. <br />16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.