REV07287 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. The proposed clarifications ib the mining and reclamation sequence are accepted as part of the revision request We appredate your acceptance of the mining and reclamation sequence as proposed. 4. Exhibk C -Affected Area Boundary Map is accepted as part of this revision request We appredate your acceptance of the affected boundary map as proposed. 5. Mining areas C 8 D as shown on Exhibit E -Reclamation Plan Map represent future mining diaturbancea and are not included in the 84.5 acre affected land boundary or reclamation cost estimate. These areas should be eliminated from Exhibit E to avoid confusion. Please revise the Exhibit E maps accordingly. We apologize iF Exhibk E was dAficuR to read, but we were trying to submR the redamation plan for the entire mine sequence induding all areas to be disturbed in the fiiture. Please find attached a revised Exhibit E - Redamation Plan Map showing the redamaion plans for only the current affected sae boundary, which is 114.8 acres, not 84.5 acres. The confusion with the 84.5 acres is understandable, as it was the number of aces we reported as being currently disturbed within that affected boundary. tt does not represent the total acres in the affected boundary map we submitted. The total number of acres in itre afeected land boundary is approximately 114.8 aces. 6. The use of replaced or backfilled sandstone overburden as a seedbed material Is acceptable; however, consideretion will need ib be given 1b incorporating various soil amendments to help "build" a seedbed that can support a divere, effective, and longaasting vegetative cover. Without sufficient tasting data, it does not seem reasonable that the use of sandstone overburden alone can achieve this goal. For bonding purposes, the Division will calculate a reclamation cost that includes the cost of soil amendments necessary 1n achieve suitable seedbed for revegetation. For clarification, please comment on the resuHs gathered from the test area(s), ie: fertilizer, mulch, manure, beet dirt, or other treatments used. Also, please comment on the location and size of the test area(s-, the number of yeare in use, and the seed mix(s) tasted. Attached please find our history of ret:lamation test areas and the success we have had with various techniques and trials. First, let me say that we have spent a good deal of our time over the past seven years studying the techniques of reclamation. In doing so, we have teamed much about what will and will not work. Regarding grasses, we have tested everything from hand scattering to hydromulching to drilling the seed on material that was sandstone overburden with no topsoil or soil enhancement to material blends of topsoil and various soil enhancemerris. We have found That the quickest resuRs for grass is to blend beet dirt as a soil enhancement into our sandstone overburden. However, disregarding the speed of growth and time factor it does not appear to improve the stand of grass overall. AMhough we intend to occasionally badkhaul beet dirt into our quany as long as we are selling rodk to the sugar companies, we do not intend to use the beet dirt on all portions of our redamaion because it is e~ensive and d does not provide a good seedbed for shrubs and trees. Regarding woody vegetation, we have tested everything from transplaning mature pinyons to planing saplings to scattering seed on the various materials as seedbed. We have discovered that the best success for the pinyons is to scatter seed on sandstone overburden with no topsdl or soil enhancement None of the pinyons have survived on the soil enhanced areas, induding scattered seed. The evergreen pine saplings have survived in the areas with sandstone overburden with no topsoil or soil enhancements and with only manure spread on the overburden.