My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV91858
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV91858
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:13:21 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:15:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981026
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/24/1990
Doc Name
MEMO 1990 CANADIAN STRIP MINE C-81-026 MID TERM REVIEW TOPSOIL REVEGTATION ISSUES
From
MLRD
To
CATHY BEGEJ
Type & Sequence
MT2
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.
/
5
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 />STATE OF <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman SI., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />303 8663567 <br />FA X: 303 832-810fi <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />DATE: January 24, 1990 <br />T0: Cathy Begej <br />FROM: Matt Hayes -I'~ ~- <br />RE: 1990 Canadian Strip Mine (C-81-026) Mid-Term Review, <br />Topsoil and Re vegetation Issues <br />~II ~I~~I~~I~~~~~~II <br />999 <br />COLORADO <br />pF' COQ <br />.~ u~ ~,. <br />•~~s'• <br />Fretl R. Banta, <br />Drvision D:renor <br />Following are adequacy questions which I recommend be passed on to the <br />operator. As you can guess, the permit application seems disorganized to <br />someone who is not familiar with it. The application contains many <br />commitments which resolved stipulations in Volume 4 in the Addendum and <br />Communications sections. While these are part of the application, commitments <br />located there often conflict with the information in the main body of the <br />application. The Addendum sections were not referenced in the application. <br />Adequacy letters associated with TR-03 and the 1987 Permit Renewal also <br />contain commitments that should be inserted as part of the main application <br />information. <br />I. Topsoil <br />1. Topsoil Depth <br />The permit application should be revised to reflect that only 6 inches of <br />topsoil was required on the 81 acres that were reclaimed in the summer of <br />1987. Page 61 of the application states "Wyoming Fuel estimates <br />sufficient soil available to cover the entire reclaimed land surface to a <br />depth of approximately 21 inches." Appendix E reiterates this <br />projection. While permit correspondence in the file notes that only <br />0,5 feet of topsoil was required for replacement in 1987, this <br />information 1) conflicts with the main body of the application, and 2) is <br />not referenced in the main body of the application. The application <br />should also correctly specify how much topsoil was replaced on the <br />disturbed area reclaimed in 1981. <br />of <br />For your information: Examination of page 19~Appendix E showed that in 1981 <br />total of 49.9 acre feet of topsoil had been stripped. It was expected that <br />173.5 acrd feet of topsoil would be salvaged from Pit 2 which was never <br />dist1. My guess is that 49.9 acre feet were thus available for the <br />81 acres reclaimed in 1987. Thus, only 0.5 feet of topsoil was available for <br />reclamation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.