My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-07-30_REVISION - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2009-07-30_REVISION - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:49:15 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 9:29:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
7/30/2009
Doc Name
DRMS Request for Permit Revision
From
DRMS
To
Western Fuels-Colorado
Type & Sequence
PR6
Email Name
MLT
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.
/
35
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
lift, l foot replacement thickness. However, for Block "A" areas, the 22 inch <br />average thickness is still significantly less than should be available for <br />replacement, based on documentation provided in the Soils Resource Information <br />section of the application, and the Soil Baseline Map (Map 2.04.9-1}. <br />Information has not been presented to demonstrate that salvage of upper lift <br />soil only, and replacement directly on graded spoils with no subsoil <br />replacement, will be suft?cient to restore the productivity of the irrigated <br />agricultural soil types. Unless such demonstration is provided, please revise <br />the pertinent narrative to specify two lift salvage and replacement for the <br />irrigated agricultural soil types. In addition, please revise the block specific <br />soil lift average thickness specifications of Map 2.05.4-4, and related <br />narrative, as appropriate. <br />4. There is an internal inconsistency on Map 2.05.4-4, regarding the replacement <br />method for Block D. The map key section indicates that a two lift replacement <br />procedure would be used for Block D, whereas other sections of the map indicate <br />that a 1 lift soil replacement would apply to Block D. <br />Please ensure that this discrepancy is corrected on the amended Map 2.05.4- <br />4. <br />5. The soil replacement procedure for the 1999 APR-5}expansion area is briefl <br />. y <br />summarized m a paragraph at the top of page 2.05.4?2)(d}-21. Statements in the <br />paragraph imply that all Lift 1 topsoil will be salvaged ahead of active mining and <br />redistributed as evenly as possible over freshly graded backfill, and that Lift 1 and <br />Lift 2 laydown thicknesses will vary from mining cut to mining cut. The <br />paragraph further states that topsoil pickup areas can be identified on Map 2.05.4- <br />4... <br />Language in this section is confusing; in a 2 lift topsoiling operation, Lift 1 soil <br />would not be replaced directly on graded backfill, but rather would be replaced <br />over Lift 2 soil. Also, the final sentence in the paragraph references Map 2.05.4-4 <br />as depicting "topsoil pickup areas". This reference is incorrect, since Map 2.05.4- <br />4 depicts topsoil replacement areas. Please amend the text as warranted to <br />clarify the salvage and replacement sequence and to correct the erroneous <br />reference. <br />6. The variable laydown thicknesses associated with individual pit cuts as described <br />on page 2.05.42}?d}-21, do not comply with Rule 4.06.4(2}(a}, which requires <br />that topsoil redistribution achieve an approximate uniform thickness consistent <br />with the approved postrnining land use and requirements of the vegetation. <br />Please amend the narrative to demonstrate compliance with 4.OG.4?2}?a}, A <br />practicable approach may be to specify a reasonable replacement thickness <br />range as well as average thickness, based on information from the baseline <br />study, for each soil lift within each designated replacement block. <br />7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.