My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11350
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11350
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:41 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:19:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996084
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
4/24/1997
Doc Name
MEMO TO FILE
To
FILE
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.
/
3
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
<br />seed mix but have no shrub requirement. Gorham expressed concerns that this could create <br />problems at bond release. Mr. Davies said DOW would like as much Mountain Mahogany as <br />possible and that oakbrush was not greatly desired. All agreed that the elk would probably utilize <br />the area regazdless of shrubs. DOW was interested in what the final reclaimed area would look <br />like in terms of topography. Mr. Koblitz explained that the ridge wold still be a ridge but would <br />be about 50 fee[ lower in elevation. <br />We then proceeded down to the Lorencito gate via the road along the north ridge of Jeff Canyon <br />and terminated the inspection. The DOW will attempt to focus the details of there concerns and <br />get it to us in thirty days. I will be coordinating with Kris Kloster. <br />On April 21, 1997 Jim Pendleton and Ken[ Gorham met with Mazk Gray of CTT_ Thompson with <br />regazd to the fills and pond embankments proposed at Lorencito. CTL will be conducting the <br />geotechnical investigation for LCC. We discussed the need for the coal waste properties of the <br />Lorencito product to be estimated now and later verified by an actual sample when the prep plant <br />begins processing coal. I think this was done at Foidel Creek in a similar fashion. CTL did a <br />relatively recent study of the New Elk waste pile but this study was not submitted to the Division <br />as part of the permit. CTL is proposing some borings and one test pit at each fill site. I relayed <br />to Jerry Koblitz the need for the permit to state the details of the geotech work as part of the new <br />permit application with regazd to topsoil stripping, road building, sediment control, etc. since the <br />work will be done under the permit and not under an NOI. Mazk Gray also inquired about our <br />needs with regazd to the embankment and pond design, since they are already at the level of <br />MSHA and the State Engineer. I told him we need those plans as part of the permit and would <br />be checking only those things that aze specified by our regs. He indicated one of their people <br />with a lot of experience with big ponds would be doing the work. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.