Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ftZ/day rather than ft/day. <br />66. Item No. 3 of Table 17-22 predicts neg~l1igible drawdown in the Trout Creek Sandstone. <br />As noted in Comment No. 49 above, tIte Division will require monitoring to verify that <br />prediction. Please provide a proposed monitoring location or locations, and a schedule. <br />Tab 19 -Reclamation Schedule <br />67. Soil replacement depth measurements at the Seneca R Mine this past summer indicate <br />that some areas at that site received much more than the required topsoil replacement <br />depth, resulting in a possible shortage of available topsoil to complete reclamation. In <br />order to avoid a similaz situation at the Yoast Mine, the Division requests that SCC <br />sample replacement depths prior to seeding of reclaimed azeas. This would allow SCC <br />to correct an replacement depth problems prior to reestablishment of permanent <br />vegetation. Please include a commitment to venfy topsoil replacement depth prior to <br />seeding. Documentation of this information would ideally be kept on file at the mine <br />site, and included in the annual reclamation report submitted to the Division. <br />68. Table 19-1 attributes 10.2 unreclaimed acres to 20' wide roads that will be left in place. <br />Until SCC submits information required by Rules 4.03.1(7)(a) and 4.03.2(1) f) (see <br />comment No. 31 above), this language cannot be included in the permit app 'cation <br />package. Please submit the information or revise the text to exclude road retention. <br />Tab 20 - Backfilling and Grading <br />69. Exhibit 20-2, Post Mini>1~g Topograpphy Map, indicates the retention of Roads A and B. <br />As noted in comments No. 31 and No. 68 above, the Division cannot approve retention <br />of the road without proper documentation. Please provide the documentation for <br />retention, or revise the post mine contour maps to show road reclamation. <br />70. Attachment 20-1, Reclaimed Drama~e Calculations, is for a channel designed to carry <br />3.51 cfs. This discharge is based on mfonnation ~Jresented, in part, in Table 2-3. The <br />Division estimated flow through the average reclaimed drainage channel to be 20.15 cfs. <br />Our model output is enclosed. Since all assumptions used to arrive at the estimate of <br />3.51 cfs were not disclosed, the Division is unable to determine the cause of the <br />discrepanccyy. Please review our calculation, and either provide additional information to <br />support SCCs estimate, or revise the design in accordance with the Division's estimate. <br />71. The reclaimed drainage calculation given is based on vegetated channel conditions. <br />,.C When the drainages aze initially constructed, vegetation will not be established. Based <br />'~ ~ on the Division's model, it is appazent that flows through the baze channels will be <br />~ ~'li erosive. Please provide a plan for temporary stabilization of the drainages until <br />~p vegetation is established. <br />21 - Minesoil Reconstruction <br />72. Table 1 and Table 2 aze not in agreement on topsoil replacement depth. Footnote No. <br />2 on Table 1 states, "...Therefore, the average soil replacement thickness for all soil <br />disturbance areas will be 1.6 feet " Whereas, footnote po. 3 on Table 2 states, "This soil <br />will be replaced on the acne area and remaining facilities to a thickness of 1.8 feet:' <br />Please brmg these two tables into agreement. <br />73. Table 2 includes a note (numbered (2)) that topsoil will not be replaced on the surface <br />and shoulders of Roads A and B. As stated above, the Division cannot approve retention <br />M. Altaciila and G. Wcodt 12 January 73, 1995 <br />