My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-09-14_REVISION - C1991078 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1991078
>
2009-09-14_REVISION - C1991078 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:55:25 PM
Creation date
9/15/2009 2:44:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1991078
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
9/14/2009
Doc Name
Review Letter (Memo)
From
Mike Boulay
To
Marcia Talvitie
Type & Sequence
TR10
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.
/
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
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Marcia Talvitie <br />FROM: Mike Boulay <br />DATE: September 14, 2009 <br />SUBJECT: Honeywood Coal Company, Hamilton Mine (Permit No. C-91-078), <br />Technical Revision No. 10 (TR-10) <br />As requested, I have reviewed Honeywood Coal Company's TR-10 application regarding the soil loss <br />demonstration prepared by J.E. Stover & Associates, Inc. for Mining Area 1. The soil loss calculation <br />was done for an adjacent/baseline area and compared to Mining Area 1 and shows that less total <br />sediment will be shed from the reclaimed area as opposed to an adjacent nonmined area. The primary <br />factor for the reduced sediment loss from the reclaimed area is increased cover on the reclaimed area as <br />opposed to the nonmined area. The calculations are used to infer that untreated drainage from the <br />reclaimed area will contribute fewer suspended solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area <br />as compared to untreated drainage from the natural surrounding premining area. I did not identify any <br />major flaws in the calculations and the demonstration is similar to those previously accepted by the <br />Division at other reclaimed coal mine locations in Colorado. I have the following minor comments. <br />Key components of the calculation are derived from a vegetation study performed by Cedar <br />Creek Associates dated July 2009. The report is referenced in the revision but I could not <br />locate a copy of the report (including in laser fiche) and it was not provided as an attachment. <br />Do you know if we have a copy of this report? If so, I would just like to verify the vegetation <br />cover data from the Cedar Creek report that are presented in the soil loss calculations. <br />2. There are several tables and figures referenced on pages 2.05-8iv through 2.05-8vi, which are <br />not included in the revision as attachments. It appears that these tables and figures are out of <br />the U. S. D. A., Agronomy Note #50 referenced in a previous paragraph. It should be clearly <br />stated on page 2.05-8iv that the tables and figures utilized in the USLE calculations are taken <br />from the U. S.D.A. Technical Notes, Agronomy Note #50.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.