Laserfiche WebLink
<br />reduce disruption to the surface environment, but subsidence <br />would have to be considered as an entirely new impact. Addition- <br />ally, the operator would incur a completely unknown set of <br />economic factors in an underground operation. <br />A possible alternative to the backfilling and grading sched- <br />ule is evident for Phases VI, VII and VIII in Pit II. It is <br />likely that overburden in Phase VIII is of higher quality than <br />that sampled for consideration in the mine plan. If reclamation <br />of Phase VI is delayed for an additional six months, to mid-1983 <br />(see Table 2 of Addendum II of the permit application and the <br />Backfilling and Grading Section of Chapter III of this TEA) the <br />top few feet of Phases VI and VII of Pit 2 could be backfilled <br />with better quality material from Phase VIII. This procedure <br />will increase the amount of area disturbed at this time, <br />potentially increasing the necessary bond amount. It will also <br />increase haul distances during some part of Phase VII operations, <br />thereby increasing costs again, but the procedure proposed above <br />will also improve the growth medium to a depth of several feet as <br />compared to the applicant's proposal and will help increase the <br />chances for a successful revegetation effort and final bond <br />release. <br />The sediment control plan could also be modified by deleting tem- <br />porary impoundment Ikl at Pit 2 and diverting that flow around <br />mining operations without an impoundment. This flaw typically <br />represents runoff from undisturbed acreage and does not actually <br />require treatment in a sediment pond. Should this alternative be <br />adopted, however, it is possible that the diversion ditch would <br />need to be enlarged and additional erosion controls might be <br />required. <br /> <br />-10- <br />