2007-11-16_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981041 (3)

Home Browse Search

facing slope extending from the north side of the north (intake) portal entry to the south side of the south (beltline) portal entry, and from the surface of the mine bench (approximate elevation 4840') to the crest of the cut slope over the mine entries (approximate elevation of 4890'), comprises the "face of exposed overburden and coal for entry into an underground mine" in this location. Permit narrative on amended page 14-7 describes the sequence of reclamation activity that will be undertaken in the immediate portal area, including demolition of existing office building structure, installation of a French drain out-by the existing portal seals, grading of concrete and cinderblock from demolition into the portals and base of the highwall, and spoil backfill of the highwall The highwall will be eliminated by backfilling the area where the coal seam was exposed. Figure 14-14 and Exhibit 6C show that the highwall will be eliminated by construction of a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope extending from the crest of the highwall to a location approximately 80 feet out from the current foot of the highwall. Slope Stability analyses included in Appendix 14-8 "Slope Stability Analysis for Snowcap Coal Company Roadside South Portal", performed for SCC by Lincoln - Devore, Inc., Geotechnical Engineers, demonstrate that both the highwall backfill embankment, and the mine bench embankment (amended by addition of additional fill associated with new Access Road 1 A) will meet or exceed a static safety factor of 1.3. Based on the foregoing discussion, the Division finds that the proposed plan will comply with Rule 4.27.4(1). 4.27.4(2) requires that ...watershed control of the area within which mining occurs shall be improved... Please refer to previous finding within Section B.VIII of this document, made pursuant to Rule 2.06.5(2)(d), which also serves to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Rule 4.27.4(2). 4.27.4(3) requires that land above the highwall may be disturbed only to the extent that the Board or the Division deems appropriate and approves as necessary to facilitate compliance with the provisions of 4.27 and if the Board or Division find that the disturbance is necessary to...achieve certain specified objectives. In this instance, the Division finds that the proposed reclamation plan would result in disturbance above the highwall, only to the extent that an existing permanent diversion has been constructed above the highwall, as appropriate and necessary to control surface runoff, as specifically allowed by Rule 4.27.4(3). 4.27.4(4) requires that the landowner of the permit area has requested, in writing, as part of the permit application under 2.06.5 that the variance be granted. Please refer to previous finding within Section B.VIII of this document, made pursuant to Rule 2.06.5(2)(e), which also serves to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Rule 4.27.4(4). 4.27.4(5) requires that operations are conducted in full compliance with a permit issued with 2.06.5. Based on review of the permit application as amended by PR-3, the Division concludes that the proposed operations would fully conform with Rule 2.06.5. The operation does meet the applicability criteria of 2.06.5(1), within designated portions of the South Portal Area. Specific findings required by 2.06.5(2) are previously addressed. Pursuant to 2.06.5(3), the Division will review the AOC variance to ensure compliance within the specific time frames prescribed (prior to the end of the P year following issuance of the approval, prior to each permit renewal, and no later than the middle of each permit term. Rules 2.06.5(4) and 2.06.5(5) require no specific findings, but rather authorize the Division to take specified actions based on future determinations. Permit Renewal No. 5 44 November 16, 2007