My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL36056
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL36056
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:46 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:35:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981022
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
4/8/1986
Doc Name
Midterm Review Findings Document
Permit Index Doc Type
Findings
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.
/
9
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
-4- <br />4. One additional concern was noted. The texture of the various <br />samples in the 1980 data was listed as either sandy loam or <br />clay, and all of the 1983 samples were characterized as clay. <br />Page 1 of Appendix H states that the textural classification <br />was produced without a particle size analysis and further <br />states: the soil textural data may not represent <br />sufficiently precise determinations to merit serious evaluation <br />as to their suitabilities for reclamation". <br />Particle size analyses should be performed on composite samples <br />obtained from previously designated sample areas, and that <br />data, along with textural classification based on the analyses <br />should be submitted for inclusion in the permit. <br />In summary, based on an initial cursory review of the soils <br />data it would appear that the sampled material has severe <br />restrictions for use as a plant growth medium. However, more <br />in depth review seems to indicate that suspect results were <br />probably due to inappropriate and inprecise analytical <br />techniques and incorrectly labeled parameter units (mmhos vs <br />umhos). <br />The Division will review these responses and if necessary <br />require remedial actions (if any) be taken. For example, if <br />the materials on site were found to be unsuitable, the operator <br />may need to purchase (and bond for) replacement material. <br />Surface Water and Groundwater Hydrology <br />1. Kaiser Coal Corporation needs to identify whether water rights <br />for the North Fork of the Gunnison River and Hubbard Creek are <br />still needed for current mine operations. Records of past <br />consumption and an estimate of future water use will help P1LRD <br />to confirm that no adverse impacts on downstream water users <br />will occur as a result of current operations at the Somerset <br />Mine. Also, provide documentation to MLRD of approval from <br />U. S. Steel Corporation and/or Colorado water Resources <br />Division for use of these water rights. <br />Kaiser Coal Corporation needs to submit a reclamation plan in <br />accordance with Rule 2,05.4 for the sewage leach field and <br />water intake galleries along the North Fork of the Gunnison <br />River. This may be included in the technical revision to be <br />submitted to the Division. The reclamation plan needs to be <br />approved prior to initiation of reclamation activities. This <br />information could not be found in the application. <br />The reclamation plan does not address how the degas wells <br />Bear Creek are to be reclaimed. In addition the operator <br />should describe how the reclamation cost estimate for the <br />was calculated on Page E-14, <br />in <br />wells <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.