Laserfiche WebLink
<br />justification of any geotechnical or geohydrological parameter assumptions <br />made, regarding factors such as shear strength, spoil density, hydro- <br />geoIogical parameters, etc. <br />5. The detailed design plan drawings, calculations, and analyses for the <br />waste rock disposal area must be certified by a registered professional <br />engineer to satisfy 2. 05.3(a). <br />2.05.9 Reclamation Plan <br />1. It is unclear from Figure 3.1-1 what part of the haul road is to be <br />Left after mining and which part is to be reclaimed. The reclamation <br />plan map (Figure 3.1-1) should indicate this as well as the postmining ' /~ <br />topography of the reclaimed sedimentation ponds and the permanent waste V <br />pile. Please supply a map of these features. All surface features to be <br />reclaimed.should be shown on a postmining topo map. <br />2. Table 2.2-1 does not indicate the timetable for reclamation of the <br />mine disturbed area. This information must be supplied to the best of the <br />applicant's knowledge and ability to conform with 2.05.9(2)(a). This <br />schedule should also include a plan for revegetation to comply with 2.05.9(2)(e). <br />A backfilling schedule subject to approval must be provided as required by <br />9.19.1(d). Please supply a revised schedule including this information. <br />3. The applicant should explain the differences between the aggregate <br />soil characteristics given on page 3-9 and those given on page 3-I1. <br />Are these not from the same topsoil stockpiles? <br />9. The applicant should provide appropriate cross-sections of the reclaimed <br />disturbed areas (preferably at right angles to one another) indicating the <br />post-mining backfilled and graded condition to conform with 2.05.9(2)(c). <br />5. At this point in time the proposed methodology for determining <br />revegetation success is inadequate. Because adequate sample size was <br />/not achieved for those plant communities mentioned in item 3 of Section <br />2.09.10 of this letter, the results of comparability between reference <br />and affected areas of these communities are voided. <br />6. The statistical evaluation of reference area comparability will be on <br />the basis of total cover and production data. Because of the effect of a <br />large weedy component (cheat grass) on cover and production data, the <br />reference data will be qualitatively assessed with respect to the perennial <br />~ component to determine comarability with the affected area. Reference <br />areas should be Fenced if in less than fair condition to bring the areas <br />into fair conditions. <br />7. Table 3.7-1 is insufficient in supplying information needed For the <br />calculation of the reclamation bond. Information which should be provided <br />with supporting calculations are, based on a worst case situation; yardage <br />of overburden to be moved, average haul or push distances, equipment to be <br />used (make and model numbers) topsoil volumes, seed costs, cost of portal <br />sealing, building removal (Colorado has no claim to salvage rights), equip- <br />ment time needed with specific reference (i.e., Caterpillar Performance <br />Handbook), identification of all assumptions and correction factors, equip- <br />ment cost (or rental), operating cost per hour, fuel cost and labor. <br />(8) <br />