My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV94897
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV94897
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:20:08 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:44:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981026
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/16/1990
Doc Name
MEMO CANADIAN MIDTERM RESPONSES SOIL REVEGETATION ISSUES
From
MLRD
To
CATHY BEGEJ
Type & Sequence
MT2
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 />iii iuiiiiiiiiu iii <br />9 9 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver. CO 80203 <br />303 8663567 <br />Fax: 303 832-8106 <br />pF CO[O <br />Rai ~9 <br />0 <br />~` %' 1° <br />. ~~~"~ '~ <br />r ~r~• <br />~ 1876 <br />Roy Romer, <br />Governor <br />( Fretl R. Banta, <br />Drv~s~on Director <br />DATE: May 16, 1990 <br />T0: Cathy Begej <br />FROM: Matthew Hayes 'n'1P~ <br />RE: Canadian Midterm Responses: Soil & Revegetation Issues <br />2. The response is acceptable. Pit 2 was never opened and thus the <br />173.5 acre feet of expected topsoil resulting from the stripping of that <br />d`" area was never disturbed. They provide no criterion showing that 12", <br />the depth they replaced in the 1981(?) reclaimed area, was ever <br />approved. But as they are quick to point out in their revised pages, <br />this is more than the 6" depth required on the 1987 reclaimed area. It <br />may be of interest to you to know that the topsoil replacement depths on <br />the 1981 reclaimed area are outlined on the first page of the addition to <br />Appendix F ("Results of Vegetation Studies Conducted During 1983, 1988, <br />and 1989.") and are summarized in Table 1 of ~ memo to you in which I <br />reviewed their data submittal. <br />~~,; ~ 3. Is this a violation? If not, do we want the areas tested, or are we too <br />'`„"' far down the reclamation road to be concerned anymore? Personally, I <br />believe a violation with no abatement is appropriate. .r« ~~~ y oc.s. <br />~~ 4. The response is acceptable. <br />d~5. The response is acceptable. <br />01.6. The response is acceptable. As requested, WFC inserted the 1987 seed mix <br />into the permit application on page 63 while retaining the previously <br />used seed mix on page 62. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.