My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-03-14_REVISION - C1981038 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981038
>
2008-03-14_REVISION - C1981038 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:25:14 PM
Creation date
5/14/2009 10:04:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981038
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
3/14/2008
Doc Name
Review Memo
From
Dan Mathews
To
Joe Dudash
Type & Sequence
TR48
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.
/
7
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 />DRMS INTERNAL MEMORANDUM <br />DATE: March 14, 2008 <br />TO: Joe Dudash <br />FROM: Dan Mathews <br />RE: Bowie No. 1 Mine (Permit No. C-1981-038) <br /> TR-48 (Reclamation Plan Revisions) <br />Joe, pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the revegetation related changes proposed <br />in TR-48, including the plan to eliminate fertilizer application and to employ extensive <br />roughening on predominantly south and west facing slopes. Because of my lack of <br />familiarity with the site and the permit, I took a fair amount of time looking through the <br />soils, vegetation, and revegetation sections of the permit volumes and findings, to try to <br />get a decent grasp of the situation out there. <br />What I have gleaned, is that the operation is inactive with no plans for future coal <br />extraction, and that there are portal benches, roads, areas at the loadout, and associated <br />support facilities that have not yet been reclaimed, but are to be reclaimed in the near <br />future. Information indicates that portions of the area were disturbed "pre-law" (East <br />Mine and Loadout). For those areas, no topsoil was salvaged and for the most part, <br />topsoil would not be replaced at those sites. <br />The West Mine was apparently disturbed "Post-Law", and topsoil was salvaged and <br />stockpiled, with some areas previously reclaimed. I have not located a detailed <br />accounting of areas to be topsoiled, with average replacement thickness specification for <br />each delineated area, but my understanding is that all West Mine areas would be <br />topsoiled, with average topsoil thickness to vary from 8 inches to 24 inches, depending <br />on location. <br />At the Paonia Loadout, approximately 40 acres were disturbed, with no topsoil salvage. <br />The area is a "grand-fathered" alluvial valley floor, and topsoil was not salvaged prior to <br />disturbance. The AVF was flood irrigated cropland (apparently fruit orchard) prior to <br />disturbance and the predominant soil type was Aqua Fria stony loam, which NRCS. has <br />identified as a soil type that supports "Farmland of Statewide Importance". There are a <br />couple different revegetation plans described in the permit application (orchard <br />reestablishment or grass hay cropland establishment); neither plan is very detailed and <br />success standards for either scenario are pretty nebulous. The grass hay cropland plan <br />seems to have been inserted into the permit subsequent to the original orchard <br />reestablishment plan, but the orchard reestablishment plan is still referenced in the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.