My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV11585
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV11585
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:22:33 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:24:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981023
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
2/15/1994
Doc Name
CHIMNEY ROCK MINE PN C-81-023 PARTIAL PHASE II BOND RELEASE REQUEST
From
DGM
To
DAVID BERRY
Type & Sequence
SL2
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
(III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII` <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St.. Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80207 <br />Phone: 17031 866.3567 <br />f AX: 1303) 832-8106 <br />Date: February 15, 1994 <br />To: David Berry, Dan Hernandez, Harry Ranney <br />From: Kent Gorha ~ <br />Re: Chimney Rock Mine, Permit No. C-81-023 <br />Partial Phase II Bond Release Request <br />of cow <br />ti~ 4 <br />.r~~" <br />M ~~ <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />M,chael 8. long <br />Div~sron Duecvn <br />I have completed my review of the above-mentioned Phase II Bond Release request. My <br />comments are as follows: <br />General Discussion <br />Inspection of aerial photos and discussion with Harry Ranney helped to portray the current <br />drainage control system that exists on the bond release parcels. Long contour ditches were <br />immediately recognized on the Barren Ridge area and the East Pit. Signs of instability (gullies, <br />ditch breaches, etc.) were evident, and this was apparently due to excessive rainfall in the <br />recent past. Vegetative cover appeared to be average and in many cases appeared much better <br />than many of the steep, barren slopes in the surrounding area. I also inspected a photo of the <br />approved reference area, which was covered with rock and sparse vegetation. Another photo <br />revealed a massive load of sediment recently delivered to one of the ponds. Based on this <br />general overview, I then proceeded to review the permit text for the approved reclamation <br />practices to determine conformance with the present on-the-ground configuration. <br />A number of inconsistencies were revealed. First, both Division personnel and the operator <br />seem to have a basic misunderstanding on what constitutes a contour furrow. In the manual <br />Design of Sediment Control Measures for Small Areas in Surface Coal Mining (Simons, Li, and <br />Associates, May 1983), contour furrows are described on page 5.2. "Contour furrows are <br />generally spaced 5 feet apart, are 20 to 30 inches wide and 8 inches deep and should be <br />dammed at intervals of 4 to 9 feet." This is dramatically different from the flowing contour <br />ditches which currently exist at Chimney Rock. Simons, Li, and Associates go on to say, "This <br />treatment is considered to be a highly successful mechanical treatment for establishing <br />vegetation." It would seem logical to me to use techniques to retain moisture on the Chimney <br />Rock reclamation rather than rapidly divert this moisture from the reclaim. Vegetation is the key <br />to long-term stability and any and all techniques should be used to optimize the vegetative <br />cover. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.