Laserfiche WebLink
14. Outdated text in Subsections 3.3 and 3.4 was extensively amended. One amended <br />page was apparently omitted from the submittal, and a couple additional minor <br />clarifications are requested. <br />a) Amended page 3-8 (containing narrative regarding upper road backfilling and <br />grading) was not included in our copies of the revision submittal, and will need to be <br />provided. <br />b) Reference to reclamation of the Loma loadout in April 2002 is apparently <br />erroneous and should be corrected. Our records indicate the loadout reclamation <br />was conducted in the fall of 2001. <br />c) There is apparently contradictory narrative in Subsection 3.4 regarding topsoil <br />replacement that needs to be clarified. A statement in Paragraph 1 indicates that <br />"till material along the road will not require topsoiling...", whereas the first sentence <br />of Paragraph 3 states that the upper section of the haul road will be topsoiled. The <br />last sentence of Paragraph 3 states that "the limited topsoil available for reclamation <br />will be spread on the mine bench". <br />Please provide the omitted page and amend the cited text sections as appropriate. <br />15. Revegetation plan information was properly re-organized, updated and consolidated <br />as requested. Item Resolved. <br />16. This comment pertained to information presented in Volume VI, which is being <br />deleted from the application. Item Resolved. <br />17. This comment recommended various modifications to the revegetation plan and <br />seedmix, which were incorporated into the amended plan. A couple clarifications <br />appear to be warranted. <br />a) The last paragraph on amended page 3-17 retains a reference to drill seeding that <br />appears to be erroneous, given the statement in amended Subsection 3.5.3 on the <br />following page that "seed will be planted by broadcasting". Please amend the <br />narrative as appropriate. <br />b) Amended page 3-21 indicates that comparison would be made to "appropriate <br />reference areas" for cover and production success determination. Given the fact <br />that the revegetation plan will be directed toward the establishment of a sagebrush <br />shrubland community, comparison to the sagebrush reference area would be <br />appropriate. Please amend the narrative as appropriate. <br />18. This comment requested updates to Subsection 3.7 to provide specific information <br />regarding installation of portal seals, including type of seal installation, date of <br />completion, and documentation of MSHA approval, as well as a description of <br />subsequent portal backfilling work. The amended Subsection states that the <br />openings were sealed with cinder block seals in conformance with 30 CFR 1711-2, <br />and that the drift openings have been filled with incombustible material for a <br />distance of at least 25 feet. Requested dates were not provided, and the reference <br />to cinder block seals conflicts with the seals described in the Division's August 10, <br />2000 Mid-term Review Document, "...the four portals...were sealed with MSHA <br />approved concrete foam in 1992..." (Section I, Review of Mine Status). <br />4 <br />