My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE102369
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE102369
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:56:17 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 8:45:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981011
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
RULE 2.05.4 RECLAMATION PLAN
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.
/
72
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
United Statea Natural 1475 Pine Grove Road, Suite 201A <br />Department of Resources Steamboat Springs <br />Agriculture Conservation Colorado, 80487-8803 <br />• Service <br />April 15, 1998 <br />Greg Lewicki <br />1645 Court Place <br />Suite 309 <br />Denver, CO 80202 <br />Dear Greg, <br />I met with you and Dave Berry of the Division of Minerals and Geology last fall at the Apex <br />t/2 Mine Site to evaluate the current vegetation cover of the reclaimed yard area, and you <br />then described the history of the pre-law site. You asked me to give you my professional <br />option of the site potential and current canopy cover. <br />r~ <br />L_J <br />I would estimate a canopy cover to be 35% of perennial herbaceous vegetation on the <br />reclaimed yard site. After reviewing the documentation of all the reclamation efforts you <br />have put into the yard area and seeing the site, I am convinced the current requirement of <br />70% canopy cover and 3500 lbs./ac.is not attainable. <br />The reasons for my decision is based on the area being filled with six feet of coal and shale <br />waste material from the port hole site and only six inches of topsoil. The six feet of fill <br />material makes the yard site completely different from it's original condition of a sub- <br />irrigated meadow. The six inches of topsoil was not required of the pre-law site but was <br />hauled in to help reclaim the site. However, with this shallow of rooting depth potential the <br />site is extremely vulnerable to drought conditions. <br />In closing, I do not think the canopy cover of the yard site will ever support much more <br />vegetative cover than the portal area which is required to be 41 % cover and 500 lbs./ac.of <br />production, unless the site is irrigated. With the slopes of the yard area being around 1 % I <br />do not think soil erosion should ever be a problem from the site. Therefore, I would <br />recommend that the canopy cover requirement for the yard area be reduced to 40-45% and <br />the annual production be lowered to 500-700 lbs./ac per year. <br />Sincerely, <br />Patrick R Davey <br />Resource Conservationist <br /> <br />RL' i~ (~ ~ l G/ 9g <br />~~y-ay <br />-7EC 2 1 1998 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.