2005-12-27_REVISION - M2000158

• Permit No: M2000158
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 12/27/2005
• Doc Name: Response to Adequacy letter
• From: Environment Inc.
• To: DMG
• Type & Sequence: TR1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

ENVIRONMENT. INC. P~OC 2
DECEMBER 23. 2005
needs for the property owners and will remain once mining and
reclamation are complete. Attached are copies of letters we have
from the Platte Trust and Mrs. McCoy confirming the wish to have
the bridges remain when reclamation is complete.
3. The marathon meeting lasted for a short time and we are waiting on
Kerr-McGee to finalize the agreement. PSiG personnel talked to
Alvin Kirkpatrick of the KM Gathering Unit when the road crossing
were being constructed and he said 4 feet of additional fill over
the gaslinea would protect them. This was suggested after KM
personnel had determined its depth below ground level. The total
cover is now approximately 92 inches of fill over the line and that
by placing this additional fill we have protected them per the
owners requirements. We are working on getting a letter from Mr.
Kirkpattick confirming his requirements. I will send you a copy
of the letter a:;d the surfa,e use ayreer^.r:nt as so01i as w•e have
then.
4. The existing topsoil piles are being handled as described in the
original text and the adequacy review response dated March 26,
2001. If left undisturbed for more than 1 year they will be seeded
with, 2.0 IPLS per 100 sq-ft of Crested Wheatgrass or other means
will be employed to preserve the topsoil from wind and water
erosion. Under this Technical Revision the operator will need
approximately 48,400 cy of soil stored on the site any one time.
A pile of this size was shown on Figure TR-1 and is enough growth
medium to resoil the areas disturbed under the bond. The original
Mining Plan Map shows the approximate location of topsoil piles as
the mine develops. We also stated in the text ,that they would be
located around the excavated area to reduce haul distances when
recoiling the above water areas. I have added topsoil piles to the
Sharkey's Lake mining plan Technical Revision map as you requested.
5. We have no overburden on this mine. The material that lies below
the topsoil is a sandy material that is sent through the processing
plant.
6. west of the Plant Site is a short section that is excavated within
400 feet of the river. You and I agree that in the original plan,
if mining was between 400 feet and 250 feet of the river the
riverside bank would be armored. No armoring on the lake side is
required until mining is within 150 feet. Armoring existed along
this stretch of river and was done prior to PSGG obtaining the
reclamation permit, so the armoring was in place prior to us mining
this area. The armoring appears to have been installed properly
and is keyed into the river bottom, instead of just dumped over the
side. The lengti: of the rip-rap extends 1595 feet south and 565
feet north of the midpoint of where mining is closet to the river.
The photos attached show the armoring in place and are keyed to the
numbers shown on Map Exhibit C-1 TR. I have added the rip rap to
Figure TR-1 and Map Exhibit C-1 TR showing the location of
riverbank armoring that was installed by the oil companies to
protect the oi] wells along the river.
We agreed that if mining was within 150 feet of the river then lake
shoreline armoz:ng would be done on the lake side banks alsc.
Mining is not taking place within 150 feet of the river so r.::