Laserfiche WebLink
2.05.4 Reclamation Plan <br />I. The applicant has submitted a reclamation timetable detailing the <br />number of days required for eactr phase, but not the length of time between <br />each phase. In the text, the life of mine plan is projected to be 15 <br />years which is subject to change with the acquisition of additional <br />reserves. Please discuss the reclamation time plan in relation to the <br />cessation of mining and the amount of time that will elapse between each <br />step. For example, after mining stops, when will mine sealing begin? How <br />much time will elapse between topsoil placement and mulching, between <br />mulching and planting of the perennial seed mix? <br />2. The applicant leas provided estimated costs for reclamation, however, <br />it is unclear how the figures were arrived at. Please discuss and support <br />the estimated cost for each phase, i.e., $1.00 yd.3 for rough and smooth <br />grading, 52.00/yd.3 for purchased topsoil, 55.00/yd.3 for retopsoiling, <br />etc. <br />3. The applicant has provided final reclamation contours for cross-sections <br />C-C' and G-G', but not for D-D', E-E' and F-F' which are shown on the <br />reclamation map. All cross-sections should be included in the application. <br />4. The applicant is requesting a variance from contemporaneous reclamation <br />at the old !/illiams Fork Strip Mine No. 2. On page V-2 it says the <br />specific area for which the delay is sought is shown on Map IV-I0. Map <br />IV-10 does not show the area or the "delay" boundary. Please locate the <br />area. Additionally, Mike Dube indicated on an inspection dated Pfarch 25, 1982, <br />that only a section of the highwalZ area would he necessary for portals <br />and the remainder would be backfilled and graded. Please discuss the time <br />frame for backfilling and grading. <br />5. The majority of the soils in the proposed permit area have severe <br />limitations for agricultural use. These soils are best suited For rangeland <br />usage. This should be consideredin the reclamation plan. <br />6. A review of Table TV-5 indicates that the only areas to be returned <br />to pastureland are the surface facilities for Unit Train Loadout and part <br />of the Eagle Portal b5. Part of Eagle portal N5, part of the office area <br />and Eagle portal b9 will be returned to dryland crops. On page IV-66 the <br />last paragraph states that all areas will be returned to cropland upon <br />completion of underground mining and the area will then be reclaimed to <br />dryland crops and as pastureland. Please clarify what areas will be <br />cropland and pastureland. <br />7. There is a discrepancy in the proposed mulching procedure mentioned <br />on page IV-51 and Iv-59. Please clarity. What mulching procedures are <br />proposed for crop and pastureland? Zf a stubble mulch i.s used, what <br />alternative will be used if this preparatory crop Fails and what will <br />determine failure? <br />B. In accordarme with 4.15.2, provide a justification for all introduced <br />species. <br />9. What is the seeding rate to be used in cropland? <br />10. Since it is not practical to develop a grazing plan now, the applicant <br />should commit to supplying a detailed grazing plan to the regulatory <br />authoritu fnr apprnvnl nh ]rn;t ~ rmnths prier ~o f:h~ iniPiatinn of in~i grnzinq. <br />