My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11526
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11526
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:53 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:20:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1989074
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
4/18/1989
Doc Name
RIMROCK STRIP MINE APPLICATION ADEQUACY REVIEW PN C-89-074
From
MLRD
To
JIM STEVENS
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.
/
4
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
iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii <br />9 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />Roy Romer, Governor <br />~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />FRED R. BANTA, Director <br />DATE: April 18, 1989 <br />T0: Jim Stevens I n <br />FROM: Jim Pendleton =`"`""Y~~ <br />RE: Rimrock S rip Mine lication - Adequacy Review <br />it #C-89-074) <br />In response to your request, I have completed a review of the geotechnical <br />aspects of the Rimrock Strip Mine permit application. In general, the <br />application is inadequate to clearly define the operator's intended mine <br />plan. I forward the following comments for your consideration in preparing <br />your adequacy opinion letter. <br />Operation Plan (Rule 2.05.3) <br />The operator's mine plan discussion is inadequate to comply with the <br />requirements of Rule 2.05.3(2)(a). The operator mentions an intention to <br />limit disturbance to 1.5 acre areas at any one time. However, no <br />explanation is presented to describe how this will be accomplished. In <br />general, the entire mine plan description is too vague to allow the <br />Division to formulate an opinion regarding the plan's technical merits. <br />2. The operator presents a brief discussion of its plan to remove overburden <br />above old shallow underground workings using a small dragline and "light <br />load" equipment to clean exposed coal. If the intention is to suggest <br />that surface equipment would operate above underground workings covered <br />by thin quantities of roof coal, the operator will need to elaborate on <br />this plan to demonstrate that such an activity is safe to the miners, and <br />feasible to conduct. <br />3. Apparently, the operator originally intended not to mine beneath the <br />Engleville Gulch, but later changed the mine plan. There is no specific <br />discussion of how they intend to divert the Engleville Gulch channel <br />flows around the 1.5 acre disturbance as it proceeds through Phase IA, <br />during which the channel portion of the gulch is to be mined. Topics, <br />such as the channel reconstruction and transition at the boundary of the <br />mined area will have to be addressed. They will also need to present a <br />detailed plan for recreation of a stable channel, capable of withstanding <br />the anticipated erosional forces. These will be critical considerations, <br />which should be carefully scrutinized by your surface water hydrologist. <br />215 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203-2273 Tel. (303) 866-3567 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.