My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL52541
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL52541
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:38:23 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 7:49:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977210
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
11/4/2004
Doc Name
Enhanced vs Permitted Reclamation Plans
From
Southwestern Ecological Services
To
DMG
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.
/
2
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
Southwestern <br />BcO~Oglca~ <br />Services <br /> <br />~~ <br />f>< R, l-1 <br />Vegetation Analysis <br />Wetland Ecology <br />Lend Rehabilitation Planning <br />Photodocumentation <br />37 East Colorado Avenue <br /> <br />November 2, 2004 <br />Bmce Humphries <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Room 215 <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />RECEIVE® <br />~ NOV04~ <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />/ RE: Question regarding Enhanced vs Permitted Reclamation plans. <br />Pikeview Quarry (M-1977-211) and Snyder Quarry (M-1977-210) <br />Dear Mr. Humphries: <br />At the CMRF Boazd meeting on October 29, 2004, a question azose regazding whether the enhanced plans aze <br />included in the permit for these two operations or if not whether they should be. Mr. Scott Davis, CMRF Boazd <br />member and Vice-President of Schmidt Construction, felt that if the plans aze not included then there might be a <br />question at some time in the future regazding whether the permitted plan was implemented or not. Mr. Jerry <br />Hermans, Uice-I?tesident of Castle Cgncrete, asked me to-inquue regarding this matter. As you are, I believe, the <br />onlg person;lef[.~t DMG Whgywent Throug~ those sometimes.'tgrtuous negouauons td develop the enhanced plans, I <br />feltYt:rnost,apptopzatel thatal3s n2tter,be_pcesented, to yourself, to additign tq your betpg the head of DMG's, , <br />Mineral~:Program::' :.. _. <br />, ..., <br />:. - _, <br />In my review of,the perrtuts on these two gperations,.there appeazs to be:two dtfferent treatments of thts question at <br />this time. I do not believe there is any problem or issue at Snyder. The enhanced plans were included in the 1994 <br />amendment, but as an unbonded overlay plan that was to be implemented on top of the permitted reclamation plan. <br />Because nothing has wally changed from the 1994 situation at Snyder, I would have to assume that the approval of <br />that amendment addresses this issue and that approval is still applicable today. At Snyder the enhanced and <br />pemutted plans aze well distinguished. <br />However, the situation at Pikeview has now become somewhat different. Originally, the enhanced plans were <br />included in the same fashion as Snyder, that is, as an unbonded overlay reclamation plan. Since that 1994 <br />amendment at Pikeview though, the situation has changed somewhat. Herein lies the concern regazding Pikeview. <br />Although elements of the original enhanced plan at Pikeview aze still the same and have been implemented <br />according to plan, a portion of the original enhanced plan for this site has been extensively altered. Most significant <br />aze the changes to the enhanced revegetation for the "Previously Mined Ateas" portion of the enhanced plan. Simply <br />put, the enhanced plan for that azea was originally a shotgun seeding approach of loading the azea with a seed <br />mixture that would include most anything and everything that might potentially grgw there and would be compatible <br />with the surrounding vegetation. There wasn't much of anything else that could be done. <br />Since that.ume~ this axea:of the enhanced plan has been taken over by the layback plan. The la~back'plaa includes <br />completely re-mining the "Previously Mined Areas" and implementing a different revegetation plari that is <br />immensely more sophisticated than the shotgun approach originally planned. In examining the layback plan, <br />preparxd;by Bapks and Ges~q,.itagpegrs that po=tions of the revegetation pazt.of the layback plan we;e bonded as <br />.part of.?he apprgval of the layback plan,.while other portions may not have been included ni:the,bond'. ' <br />Unfortutately,.this. seems to be very.poody defined in the layback amendment, Herein has the concern qh the part <br />of the CMRF., <br />Denver, Colorado 80210-3105 (303) 722-9067 Fax (303) 778-6937 <br />~~ ~DC S <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.