Laserfiche WebLink
'-+ i~ • • <br />letter from the local BLM office stating that they approve of the <br />reclamation plan and understand the areas cannot be reclaimed to <br />original contours because of the steep topography. Although OSM <br />was still not completely happy with this letter at the time the <br />report was written, I have spoken to Mitch and he indicated that <br />the letter would suffice, however, the Division has not received <br />anything in writing to substantiate this. <br />MR-29 clarified what the post-mining land use will be in both the <br />Bear Canyon and Hubbard Creek areas by incorporating public use <br />into the post-mining land use even though, by definition, public <br />use is not a post-mining land use. The permit and associated maps <br />now read that the post-mining land use for these areas will be <br />undeveloped/public use. This can be supported by the fact that <br />these areas are used by the public, mainly for access to other <br />public areas. <br />As for this particular TDN, the operator has not yet reclaimed this <br />site so the first part of the TDN seems to be invalid, and as for <br />part two, the Division believes that the variance was (or has now <br />been) appropriately granted with respect to those issues cited in <br />this TDN. However, the cover letter sent with the TDN states that <br />"the extent of backfilling is the issue that the enclosed TDN will <br />address". So it appears that OSM originally started with the land <br />use and the landowner letter but now seems to be shifting their <br />focus to simply stating that the backfilling plan is inadequate. <br />With that said, the Division does have some concerns about whether <br />the operator is utilizing ALL available material to effectively <br />backfill the Bear Canyon facility to the most stable configuration <br />with a safety factor of 1.3. As part of the AOC demonstration (I <br />think) a stability analysis was performed for the proposed final <br />grade at the Bear Canyon complex. That analysis indicated the <br />appropriate safety factor for the currently approved backfilling <br />and grading plan. <br />I would propose that we respond to the OSM indicating that we have <br />properly addressed the initial variance from AOC and point out the <br />inconsistencies in our rules with respect to the land use. At the <br />same time we could indicate that we also have some concerns about <br />the real issue, which is whether Somerset is utilizing all <br />available material and reclaiming to the best and most stable final <br />configuration. We could then pursue further action via the permit <br />defect process to ensure this is occurring. Hopefully, they will <br />consider this to be an appropriate response. <br />If you have any questions or need additional information, please <br />see me. <br />attachments <br />AJW/ajw <br />