Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVI[??! QF RECLAMATl?h1, M[NIN? AND ?AF?TY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />13? 3 Sherman 5t., Room Z 1 ? <br />Deaver, Colorado 8?2?3 C O L? R? D? <br />D1V15IDN D? <br />Phone: ??03? 866-3?6? ??LAh?ATIOI?I <br />>~Ax: ??oa? 832-8rt D6 ?l I N I N ? <br /> <br /> SAFETY <br /> Bill Ritter, Jr. <br /> Governor <br /> Harris D. Sherman <br /> Executive Director <br />NT?I??FI?E NIEI??A11II?UIVI <br />I ?????? w. Catrany <br />. Division director <br /> Natural Resource Trustee <br />T?: Marcia Talv?tie <br />?+ ?? dike ? oulay <br />DATE: eptenaber ]4, ?4a? <br />,ICT: I?aney?ood Coal Company, Hamilton Mine ?PerznitNo. -9I-47$}, <br />Technical revision No. I a ?T?? l 4} <br />As requested, I have reviewed Honeyood Coal Company's TR-14 application regarding the soil <br />loss demoias?ration prepared by J.E. stover Associates, Ina. for Mining Area I. The soil loss <br />calculation was lone for an adjacent?baseline axon and compared to IVlix?ing Area 1 and shoves that <br />less total sediment will be shed from the reclaimed area as opposed to an adjacent nonmined area. <br />The primary factor for the reduced sediment loss from the reclaiiried area is increased cover on the <br />reclaimed area as opposed to the nonn?.?aed area. The calculations are used to infer that untreated <br />drainage from the reclaxrned area mill contribute fewer suspended salads to stream?lo? or runoff <br />outside the permit area as cainpared to untreated drainage from the natural surrounding premining <br />area. I did not identify an?r ina?ar flav?s in the calculations and the deinonstration is siiaailar to those <br />previously accepted by the Division at other recXaimed coal mine locations in Colorado. I have the <br />folla?in minor comments. <br />1. icy components of the calculation are derived ?rana a vegetation study perfor?r?ed by Cedar <br />Creep Associates dated duly X449. The report is referenced in the revision but I could not <br />locate a copy of the report including in laser fiche} and it vas not provided as an <br />attachment. Do you l?xiav? if ire have a copy of dais report? If sa, I v?auld just life to verify <br />the vegetation cover data from the Cedar Cxeel? report that are presented in the soil lass <br />calculations. <br />2. There are several tables and figures i?eferenced on pages x.45-$iv tllrouh ?.4-?vi, v?hich <br />are not included in the revision as attaclainents. It appears that these tables aiad figures are <br />out of the C.J., D. ?., Agranoixiy dote #Q referenced xia a previous paragraph. It should be <br />clearly stated on page x.45-8iv that the tables and figures uti?i?ed iia the USE calculations <br />axe taken froiaa the U..D.A.. Technical Notes, Agronomy ?1ote #SC?. <br />office of office of <br />Mined Land E?eclamation Deaver • brand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines