My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2014-01-24_REVISION - C1981012
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981012
>
2014-01-24_REVISION - C1981012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:39:14 PM
Creation date
1/27/2014 9:38:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981012
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/24/2014
Doc Name
Follow Up to Initial Adequacy Review
From
DRMS
To
Greg Smith
Type & Sequence
TR68
Email Name
LDS
SB1
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.
/
5
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
Page 3 of 3 <br />Table 1: Revegetation failure rates at CO coal mines <br />County <br />Avg. Annual <br />Precipitation (inches) <br />Mine <br />Revegetation failure rate <br />(post- mining land use) <br />Moffat (Craig) <br />13.28 <br />Trapper <br />17.5% <br />Colowyo <br />20% <br />Delta (Paonia) <br />15.39 <br />Elk Creek <br />50% (Rangeland) <br />Terror Creek <br />20% (Pasture) <br />Bowie 2 <br />50% (Pasture) 50% (Wells /Pads) <br />West Elk <br />25% (Upland /Rangeland) <br />50% (Steep slopes /Roads) <br />Fremont (Canon City) <br />12.51 <br />Southfield <br />33% (Rangeland) <br />50% (Tree transplants) <br />Las Animas (Trinidad <br />lake) <br />Las Animas (Trinidad) <br />Las Animas (New Elk <br />Mine — per the PAP) <br />17.71 <br />15.55 <br />16.92 <br />Lorencito <br />50% (Rangeland) <br />Golden Eagle <br />40% (Rangeland) <br />New Elk <br />33% <br />La Plata (Durango) <br />La Plata (Mancos) <br />18.98 <br />16.86 <br />King Coal <br />50% <br />Rio Blanco (Rangely) <br />10.03 <br />Deserado <br />50% (Rangeland) <br />Weld (Ft. Lupton) <br />12.63 <br />Keensburg <br />60% (Rangeland) <br />Mesa (Fruits) <br />Mesa (Palisade) <br />9.25 <br />9.88 <br />Fruita Loadout <br />50% (Rangeland) <br />Roadside <br />50% (Rangeland) <br />Montrose (Uravan) <br />Montrose (Norwood) <br />12.54 <br />15.41 <br />New Horizon <br />25% (Rangeland) <br />10% (Irrigated pasture) <br />Routt (Hayden) <br />15.45 <br />Foidel Creek <br />20% (Rangeland) <br />31. In Section 3.0, page 5, NECC states reasons substantiating why disc harrowing is not needed <br />for reclamation tasks. The Division concurs and will not include disc harrowing in the RCE. <br />32. In Section 3.0, page 5, NECC provided additional detail regarding specific RCE tasks. <br />a. The corrected East Portal Hoist House dimensions will be used to update the <br />Demolition task. <br />b. NECC provided an argument against using a drill rig to abandon shallow alluvial wells. <br />The Division concurs and will revise the sealing task for the shallow alluvial wells to <br />remove the drill rig. Sealing of deep wells will still use a drill rig. <br />c. NECC provided updated dimensions of the three Bates portal openings and the West <br />Portal. The updated dimensions will be used in the Division's RCE calculations. <br />d. NECC contends that the West Portal abandonment will not require construction of a <br />bulkhead seal in accordance with Rule 4.07.3, and consistent with 30CFR 75.1711. <br />Did the West Portal sealing methodology meet MSHA requirements? <br />Sincerely, <br />Leigh Simmons. <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />cc: Ron Thompson; Kent Gorham, Gorham Energy Consultants <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.