|
New Horizon Mine
<br />2012 ARR Review
<br />Annual Reporting, Permit
<br />Revegetated Land Pasture Yields
<br />Exhibit 2012 -11 depicts NH2 first cut yields.
<br />Evaluated exhibit 2012 -11. PLEASE ADD AN ITEM TO THE LEGEND IN EXHIBIT 2012 -11 FOR PASTURE AREAS. THE ARR TEXT STATES THAT
<br />page 2.05.4(2)(e) -74
<br />THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE FOR 1 CUTTING PRODUCTION FROM THE NH2 AREA WAS 1,472 IBS /AC - THIS DISAGREES WITH THE NUMBER
<br />IN EXHIBIT 2012 - 11(1,562 IBS /AC). IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM EXHIBIT 2012 -11 OR THE ARR REPORT THAT A 2ND CUTTING OCCURED,
<br />HOWEVER, THE RECLAMATION MANAGEMENT TRACKING WORKSHEET- IRRIGATION FOR AUGUST 2012 INDICATES THAT SECOND
<br />CUTTING OCCURRED BETWEEN 8/12/12 AND 9/15/12 WHEN THE IRRIGATION WAS SHUT OFF. ALSO, IN THE COMMENTS SECTION ON
<br />THE WORKSHEET, IT APPEARS THAT ONLY "SOME' 2ND CUT DATA WERE COLLECTED. PLEASE PROVIDE THESE DATA IF COLLECTED.
<br />?
<br />Soil and Spoil Scarification
<br />ARR Report indicates that prior to growth media soil replacement the final graded spoil was
<br />This is consistent with wording/requirements in the Permit PR 6 MR 81. "Prior to replacement of topsoil the graded spoil will be ripped to
<br />scarified to a depth of approximately 2 ft using ripper shank attached behind a dozer.
<br />reduce compaction." No problems noted.
<br />Permit (PR 6 MR 79)
<br />Soil and Spoil Monitoring Data -
<br />Exhibit 2012 -7 depicts backfill spoil sample locations and shows backfill placement limits.
<br />Evaluated Exhibit 2012 -7, backfill, 9 samples (55 -46, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62 and 51) were located in the 2012 backfilled area in Zone 4 at
<br />section 2.05.4(2)(d)
<br />Morgan Soils - monitor replaced
<br />a rate of one sample per 2.5 ac, which exceeds the required sample intensity of 1 per 5 acres for spoil in Zone 4 (Table 2.05.4(2)(d) -lA
<br />soil and final graded spoil
<br />and in Section 2.05.4(2)(d) 2011 -03 MR79). No problems noted.
<br />Permit (PR 6 MR 79)
<br />Soil and Spoil Monitoring Data -
<br />Exhibit 2012 -7 depicts backfill spoil sample locations and shows backfill placement limits.
<br />Evaluated Exhibit 2012 -7, backfill, 10 samples (NHSS -247A, 247B, 248A, 248B, 249A, 2498, 250A, 250B, 251A, 2518) were located in the
<br />section 2.05.4(2)(d)
<br />Non - Morgan Soils - monitor
<br />2012 backfilled area in Zone 7 at a rate of one sample per 5 ac, correct grid dimensions are shown on the map. No problems noted.
<br />re laced soil and final graded
<br />Permit (PR 6 MR 79)
<br />Spoil Quality - Morgan Soils -
<br />Attachment 2012 -A contains required soil samples taken by WFC personnel on Morgan soils.
<br />Evaluated Attachment 2012 -A sample results in comparison to threshholds in Table 2.05.4(2)(d) -lA and in Section 2.05.4(2)(d) 2011 -03
<br />section 2.05.4(2)(d) -
<br />New Horizon Mine is required to
<br />MR79 for 9 samples (SS -46, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62 and 51) shown on Exhibit 2012 -7. PLEASE SEND A CLEAN COPY OF THE SOIL TEST
<br />Table 2.05.4(2)(d) -lA Spoil
<br />conduct re- graded spoil
<br />RESULTS - CURRENTLY THERE ARE SEVERAL BLACKED OUT AREAS ON THE RESULTS, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO READ COLUMN HEADERS.
<br />and Soil Suitability Criteria
<br />monitoring to determine spoil
<br />ALSO, THE ZONE INDICATED ON THE SAMPLE RESULTS (page footer "F: \Eng\ DATA\ excel \Topsoil \soilstudy_2012 ") IS ZONE 3, AND THE
<br />(Morgan Prime Farmland)
<br />suitability.
<br />ZONE INDICATED ON EXHIBIT 2012 -7 IS ZONE 4 (THE CORRECT ZONE). PLEASE VERIFY THAT SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS CORRESPOND TO THE
<br />RIGHT SAMPLES. ASSUMING COLUMNS WERE INTERPRETED CORRECTLY BASED ON CURRENT BLACKED OUT VERSION, all samples tested
<br />within threshholds.
<br />Permit (PR 6 MR 79)
<br />Spoil Quality - Non - Morgan Soils -
<br />Exhibit 2012 -7 depicts backfill spoil sample locations and shows backfill placement limits.
<br />Evaluated Attachment 2012 -A sample results in comparison to threshholds in Table 2.05.4(2)(d) -1B and in Section 2.05.4(2)(d) 2011 -03
<br />section 2.05.4(2)(d) -
<br />New Horizon Mine is required to
<br />Attachment 2012 -A contains required soil samples taken by WFC personnel on non Morgan
<br />MR79 for samples (NHSS -247A, 2478, 248A, 248B, 249A, 2498, 250A, 250B, 251A, 2516) shown on Exhibit 2012 -7. PLEASE SEND A CLEAN
<br />Table 2.05.4(2)(d) -1B Spoil
<br />conduct re- graded spoil
<br />soils.
<br />COPY OF THE SOIL TEST RESULTS - CURRENTLY THERE ARE SEVERAL BLACKED OUT AREAS ON THE RESULTS, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO
<br />and Soil Suitability Criteria
<br />monitoring to determine spoil
<br />READ COLUMN HEADERS. ASSUMING COLUMNS WERE INTERPRETED CORRECTLY BASED ON CURRENT BLACKED OUT VERSION, all
<br />(Other Areas)
<br />suitability.
<br />samples tested within threshholds.
<br />Annual Reporting, Permit
<br />Topsoil Thickness - Soil lift
<br />Exhibit 2012 -6 depicts topsoil thickness and sample locations.
<br />Evaluated Attachment 2012 -A sample results in comparison to threshholds in Table 2.05.4(2)(d) -1B and in Section 2.05.4(2)(d) 2011 -03
<br />page 2.05.4(2)(e) -74;
<br />thickness data and soil and topoil
<br />MR79 for samples (TS -109). THE ACCEPTED SOIL TEXTURES IN TABLS 1B DO NOT APPEAR TO INCLUDE SCL (SANDY CLAY LOAM), WHICH
<br />Permit (PR 6 MR 79)
<br />sampling reports and data
<br />IS THE TEXTURE INDICATED IN THE SAMPLE RESUTTS FOR SAMPLE TS -109. DOES "SC" IN TABLE 1B ENCOMPASS "SCL "? PLEASE VERIFY.
<br />section 2.05.4(2)(d) -
<br />pursuant to Section 2.05.4(2)(d)
<br />Evaluated Exhibit 2012 -6, topsoil, and compared to Map 2.05.4-4 Postmining Topsoil Replacement, 1 sample point located in quadrant TS
<br />Table 2.05.4(2)(d) -1B Spoil
<br />and Tables 2.05.4(2)d) -lA and 1
<br />109 was sampled in the 4.4 acre 2012 topsoiled area in Zone 7 (meeting the requirement of 1 sample per 5 acres in this area, correct grid
<br />and Soil Suitability Criteria
<br />B ; Topsoil testing and reporting
<br />dimensions are shown on the map). Evaluated exhibit 2012 -6 soil sample (75109 Zone 7) in comparison to thresholds in Table 2.05.4(2)(d)
<br />(Other Areas)
<br />per Section 2.05.4(2)(d)
<br />1B and in Section 2.0S.4(2)(d) 2011 -03 MR79. TS DEPTH FOR TS -109 WAS 2.1' (25.2 ") - TOPSOIL DEPTH REQUIREMENT FOR ZONE 7 IS 12-
<br />20". TABLE 1B INDICATES THAT THE SAMPLE THICKNESS SHOULD BE A MAX OF 2'. QUESTION: DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE TS DEPTH
<br />EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENT OF 12 -20" BY 5.2" AND /OR EXCEEDS THE SAMPLE DEPTH OF 2' BY 1 "? - IS THIS EXCESS ACCEPTABLE? (THE
<br />RESULTS IN EXHIBIT 2012 -6 NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED TO SHOW THAT TS -109 WAS SAMPLED, NOT TS -104 AS INDICATED). ASSUMING
<br />COLUMNS WERE INTERPRETED CORRECTLY BASED ON CURRENT BLACKED OUT VERSION, all samples tested within threshholds, NOT
<br />INCLUDING TEXTURE, SEE ABOVE NOTE.
<br />Permit section
<br />(Top) Soil Redistribution
<br />The Topsoil Redistribution section modified with PR -06 in Dec -2012 and MR -79 in March
<br />Evaluated Exhibit 2012 -6 showing the different soil zones and required soil depths for each zone and compared to Permit Map 2.05.4 -4
<br />2.05.4(2)(d)
<br />2011. Current redistribution maps in the Permit, available in Laserfiche:
<br />(Postmining Topsoil Replacement) PR 6 MR 79 (3/2011). MAP 2.05.4-4 INDICATES THAT LIFT A IN ZONE 4 SHOULD BE 25" AVERAGE
<br />THICKNESS - THIS DISAGREES WITH EXHIBIT 2012 -6 WHICH INDICATES THAT LIFT A IN ZONE 4 IS 24" AVERAGE THICKNESS. THE
<br />Map 2.05.4 -4 Postmining Topsoil Replacement
<br />COMBINED THICKNESS ALSO DISAGREES (58" VS. 57 "). MAP 2.05.4 -4 INDICATES THAT BENCH 1 SUBSOIL IN ZONE 8 THICKNESS SHOULD
<br />Map 2.05.4 -7 WFC Lloyd & Benson West Propoerties
<br />BE 10 -24" - THIS DISAGREES WITH EXHIBIT 2012 -6 WHICH INDICATES THAT BENCH 1 SUBSOIL IN ZONE 8 SHOULD BE 18"+ THICKNESS.
<br />Ma 2.05.4 -9 To soil Stock ile Ma as of June 2010.
<br />New Horizon Mine
<br />2012 ARR Review
<br />
|