Laserfiche WebLink
During this review several problems were noted with Map 26 which depicts the <br />sediment control and drainage system for the mine. The major problem was witfi <br />misnumbering or lack of numbering for ditches, culverts and ponds. Also, <br />several minor revisions to the sediment control system have not been <br />incorporated into Map 26 of into the design section located in Exhibit 18 of <br />the permit application. Therefore, in order to consolidate all approved <br />drainage structures on one concise map the following stipulation is imposed. <br />STIPULATION N0. 5 <br />WITHIN 90 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE THE OPERATOR WILL SUBMIT AN UPDATED VERSION <br />OF MAP 26 AND EXHIBIT 18 SHOWING THE EXISTING DRAINAGE AND SEDIMENT CONTROL <br />PLAN PRESENTLY ON SITE. THIS MAP MUST ALSO INCLUDE ANY SMALL AREA EXEMPTIONS <br />GRANTED. EXHIBIT 18 MUST ALSO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT ANY REVISIONS TO THE <br />PERMIT AND EXISTING ON SITE CONDITIONS. <br />With the acceptance of this stipulation, the application is in compliance with <br />the requirements of this sec tiort for the Eagle Mine Complex. <br />XVII. Backfillinq and Grading - Rules 2.05.3(b). 2.05.4(2)(a <br />Rule 2.05.5 requires a plan/schedule for backfilling and grading in sufficient <br />detail to allow the Division to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed <br />post-mining topography and the required bond estimate. Volumes of material to <br />be moved were presented on Table 63 of the permit application and the final <br />backfilled topography is depicted on Map 29. <br />The applicant received approval of technical revisions in May of 1986 to <br />instigate development work from the No. 5 Mine to the "F" seam of the proposed <br />No. 6 Mine. The waste rock produced is approved for placement against the <br />existing highwall of the 5A portal. Designs for this development rock <br />placement are included in Exhibit 40 of the application. The total volume <br />approved for placement is 12,000 cubic yards. <br />The applicant also proposes to dispose of underground development waste within <br />the existing No. 9 Portal incline excavation. These portals are proposed to <br />be sealed and abandoned. The approved reclamation plan calls for the <br />backfilling of the existing excavated incline. The applicant proposes to <br />utilize the excavation to dispose of waste, which would increase the volume of <br />waste their plan would accommodate. Because there would be no elevated <br />embankment, slope stability is not a concern. Minimal ground waters might <br />invade the unencapsulated waste, but are projected to produce insignificant <br />amounts of leachate. <br />The applicant requests an amendment to the currently approved post-mining <br />topography of the Williams Fork Strip Pit No. 2: A proposed post-mining <br />topography was approved as a portion of original Permit C-81-044. The <br />approved configuration requires the regrading of approximately 240,000 cubic <br />yards of spoil. The applicant was allowed to postpone final grading, because <br />the installation of a second set of portals for the No. 9 Mine was proposed at <br />this location. The applicant's proposed reconfiguration of the post-mining <br />topography for the pit requires the regrading of approximately 40,000 cubic <br />-58- <br />