My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-02-02_REVISION - C1992080
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1992080
>
2015-02-02_REVISION - C1992080
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:57:10 PM
Creation date
2/3/2015 7:28:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1992080
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
2/2/2015
Doc Name
Response to Adequacy Review
From
Savage and Savage
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
PR1
Email Name
MLT
DIH
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.
/
6
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
The text on page S -7 of the APD has been revised to remove the reference to disturbed area <br />acreage, as the acreages are discussed in detail on page 5 -2. <br />2.05.4(2)(b) — Reclamation Cost <br />The current reclamation cost estimate approved in RN -4 has five remaining reclamation <br />tasks with an estimated cost of $84,714.36; however, the permit states that there are no <br />known remaining reclamation obligations and that DRMS is required to maintain a <br />minimum bond of $10,000. This paragraph in the permit (page 5 -7) does not reflect <br />the current reclamation cost estimate and implies the remaining state held bond is <br />$10,000. Please amend this paragraph to discuss the remaining reclamation tasks or <br />reference the current reclamation cost estimate. <br />The APD text in this section has been revised to reflect the most recent CDRMS bond <br />calculation and incorporate it by reference. <br />2.05.4(2)(d) — Soil Replacement <br />1. Please amend this section to describe the thickness of topsoil that was redistributed, in <br />accordance with 4.06.4(2)(a). <br />The text on page 5-8 of the APD has been revised to reflect the redistributed topsoil depth <br />during final reclamation. <br />2.05.4(2)(e) — Reve eg tation <br />1. The first paragraph (page 5 -8) explains that the post mining land use was changed from <br />wildlife habitat and cropland to industrial/commercial, recreation and residential in TR -5 <br />and the revegetation plan was amended in the 1996 -1997 mid -term review. It does not <br />address the change in post mining land use nor the reclamation standard proposed in PR- <br />01. <br />The goal of the currently planted vegetation was to adequately control erosion. It is unclear <br />from the discussion provided if the vegetation currently planted in the reclaimed area will <br />meet the criteria of a dryland pasture and support livestock grazing. Please include a <br />discussion of how the current vegetation at the Carbon Junction Mine will meet the <br />definition of pastureland, as stated in Rule 1.04(71)(b). Some addition topics that could be <br />discussed are found in The Guideline Regarding Selected Coal Mine Bond Release Issues, <br />page 11, bullet 4. Note in the discussion if livestock is currently be grazed in the permit <br />area. <br />Page 5 -8 of the APD has been revised to reflect the changes in post- mining land use over the life <br />of the mine and how the reclamation and revegetation plan were designed and implemented in a <br />way that satisfies any and all of the post- mining land uses approved during the life of the mine. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.