Laserfiche WebLink
M>. Midm' Boulay <br />~;~ aJMvterals and ~ <br />fmamY lB, 7999 <br />Page /4 <br />Comment 37 -Paragraph 4, page 1, Tab 4 indicates that there are no significant faun-related uses in <br />the area of the mine. This seems to contraditt related information in Tabs 16 and 17, which indicates <br />that such farm-related uses exist along Hubberson Gulch and Dry Creek. Please revise this page as <br />needed, or explain the possible discrepanry. <br />"Significant" is the key worl. SCC believes and maintains chat no significant farm-related uses <br />exist in the vicinity of the Mine Permit Area. Also see the response co Comment 35. These taro <br />areas are described in the permit on page 10, paragraph 2, under the section titled "Adjacent <br />Areas". The narrative on page 1 is a generalization when looking at the land use of the entire <br />surrotmding area. On page 10, we describe these two specific areas along Hubberson Gulch and <br />Dry Creek. The on}y change co the land use section associated with this permit revision was the <br />inclusion of the additional permit area on Figure 1, Regional Land Use Map, and Exhibit 4-1, <br />Land Use -Mine Area, Tie-Across Haulroad, and Adjacent Areas. <br />3.02.2 DETERMINATION OF BOND AMOUNT <br />Comment 38 - 7lx esttinatel msu far ntlianatiat operatioru associattd with tlx proposal .Sotrtli Expansion Amu <br />xtere not indtrlel zen7h the pemrit >euisiat appluatiaz package. Pn'ar to apprata! of this penrtit mursian, ttx Ditnsiat <br />7eill tt~lttim an rrpdatel ndmturtirn cart estcnate <br />SCC is aware that a reclamation cost estimate is required prior to final approval. SCC provided an <br />explanation and rationale of w•hy a reclamation cost estimate did not accompany the initial <br />submittal. SCC will provide an updated reclamation cost estimate once the DMG has indicated <br />initial approval of this permit revision. <br />GENERAL COMMENTS <br />Comment 39 - £xhiliu 12-ZA is referetnrl on page 5 of Tab 12. This exhibit is lalelal as 12-3. Please mrnse <br />~SAa~, fappropnate. <br />Page 5 has been revised co reference Exhibit 12-3. <br />Comment 40 - Onpage 6 of Attaotitavtt 1358, Figure 1 Post Muting Clamvrd I~signs is referato3L This figure <br />atus not rndl+dal wirji the mrnsivt appltuuiarc Please prornde thrc~ (3f metes of this figure far our mrireret <br />Figure 1, Post Mining Channel Designs, is provided with this response package. <br />Comment 41 - It is tatrlatr wdnt is ntemu b~ tlx last tun senteras in rlr semel paragraph of page 101 in Tab 17. <br />If dcer~l appropriate, please mrvmte these sentot~s for litter clarity. <br />The sentences in question have been changed to read: <br />The primary cation in the Seneca II-W South spoil aquifer will depend on the degree of cation <br />exchange and the amount of precipitation and redissolution of calcite and gypsum occurring in <br />the spoil water. Because the dominant anion in the spoils groundwa[er from the Seneca II area is <br />sulfate, spoil discharge from both the Seneca II-W and Seneca II-W South areas is also expected <br />to be sulfate-type water. <br />Comment 42 - In mritsal Tab 20, serxral senr0ta?s and aeortis am tardedinal on pages 1, 2, 10, 11, and 13. <br />Please arxxk this and n~ttote tlx tozledtites, if apptapnate. <br />