Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• <br />5. Refer to page 780-106. The <br />redistribution of topsoil. This <br />with the addition of language. <br /> <br />mining b reclamation sequence ]caves out <br />is likely an oversight and maybe corrected <br />61 Refer to page 780-111. The topsoil salvage plan for Energy Mine (/1 does <br />not agree with baseline soil information. The baseline soil information <br />should be used in the topsoil salvage plan. <br />7~ Refer to 780-115. Amore thorough quantative, discussion of subsoil <br />salvage and the areas where this salvage will occur should be indicated on the <br />map. <br />8: Refer to 780.116. The applicant should indicate to what depth subsoil <br />will be renlaced. A table could be used to present this. <br />9~ Refer to 780-116. The applicant should indicate to what depth topsoil <br />will be replaced. A table could be used to present this. Show depth of soil <br />replaced and amount of area receiving topsoil for each year. <br />10) The 1979-204 and 770 areas in the NW 1/4 of Section 17, T4H, R86W will <br />not be backfilled until 1981. Please clarify I~ow this complies with [he <br />contemporaneous reclamation requirements by identifying alternatives. Also, <br />it appears that the area will have subsoil redistributed before the area Ss <br />graded - Please clarify. <br />11) Data is needed to substantiate that the excess spoil pile is necessary. <br />This must include pre-and post mining topography, cross sections and pre and <br />post mining stream profiles in the effected area. Also the 28 swell faCCOC <br />determined by CTL Thompson was for spoil from dragline operations. A swell <br />factor should be determined for [he spoil nssocinted with the dozer pits. <br />Representative crossections showing the method used to calculate the <br />postmining topography should be provided ("range diagrams"). These must show <br />individual dragline spoil piles; proper use of "swell factor", directions of <br />rehandling, and any proposed movement of spoil outside the area represented on <br />individual sections. These must he exceptable for checking by plan~imeter. <br />12. The detention time calculations have not been submitted for ponds having <br />a type-three riser. Select any one pond as an example, and submit a <br />calculated dewatering time for the 10 year, 24-hour runoff, with the necessary <br />supporting information. <br />13. The inflow and outflow to ponds F and C (see map 13) appear to be located <br />so close together that the ponds might be susceptible to short circuitLng. <br />Ponds should be redesigned and submitted or the applicant s}~all provide <br />calculations to demo~istrate that potential short cir.cui[ing is not a problem. <br />14. Sediment calculations for Pond A were based upon the year 1980. Why was <br />this year selected? Pond sizing should be based on the worst case during, the <br />life of the pond. _ Do the calculations for the year 1980 meet worst case <br />conditions? Provide demonstration. <br />_.. ,_ a, <br />....:.: ""'~Wmi7l{Fi ii+~i.~,iiTY1ScK;3i. ^-'~"'".".7L-:.'-:...5..:.~.i „+^5" ~.T"tR'.1S^•-.. .. _. .~_ -.._.... ... _ _ _,._.__. „2-._. <br />