Laserfiche WebLink
Location of Trapper's presentation of topsoil data. Table 2.3-1, on pace'-10 of Trapper's bond <br />release submittal, summarizes the topsoil replacement history and the results for mean topsoil <br />thickness fur each parcel (A duplicate copy of these data are shown in Appendix 2. L) As Trapper <br />notes on pages 3-l and 2-9 of the submittal, Table 2.3-1 and Appendix 2.1 contain parcels that are <br />not part of this bond release. These parcels are: A-A-9b, A-B-94, A-B-9b, A-G94, A-C-9d, D-A-93. <br />D-.A-94, D-A-9~. D-B-94, D-B-9~, D-C-94, D-C-9~, both Hawkins pit parcels (designated as Hl, <br />and all of the cropland parcels (designated as CR). <br />Location of Division's record of topsoil data. ,appendix 2.3 of the bond release submittal presents <br />the topsoil thickness measurement data that the Division had obtained, and which are recorded in <br />the Division's inspection report dated July l ~, 1996. In addition, the Division's inspection report <br />of tune 2l, 1990 contains field measurements of topsoil thicknesses on Derringer pit reclamation. <br />Finally, various Division inspection reports contain observations of Trapper's topsoiling techniques. <br />General compliance of topsoil thickness. Table 2.3-1 shows that the mean topsoil thicknesses of <br />the vast majority of pazcels met or exceeded the minimum required 12-inch thickness. Of the 5~ <br />pazcels submitted for Phase II bond release, 47 pazcels met or exceeded the standard for topsoil <br />thickness, regazdless of sampling method. <br />Parcels that exceed the minimum thickness. Topsoil thicknesses on three parcels, A-C-82, A-C- <br />84.A and C-B-89, were well over the minimum thickness when the Division's data were used, in <br />preference to Trapper's field measurements or load counts, which showed topsoil to be slightly <br />thinner than the minimum required. One of the three parcels, C-C-91, is a permanent topsoil <br />stockpile. Two of the pazcels, C-B-90 and C-C-93, met the standard, if it is assumed that the load <br />count correctly separated cropland from rangeland. <br />Measurement uncertainty on two parcels. Two parcels appeared to be thinner than the required <br />minimum, although the data were inconclusive. E-A-84 showed an average topsoil thickness of 9.8 <br />inches by the Division's measurement, but 12 inches by Trapper's field measurement. Although <br />pazcel E-A-86's 9.5-inch thickness falls short of the 12-inch minimum, the thickness is based on <br />only the Division's two measurements in this 12.2-acre parcel, and therefore, may not fairly <br />represent the thickness. <br />Division's finding of compliance on topsoil thickness. The Division finds that Trapper has <br />replaced the necessary topsoil thickness on all of the reclaimed parcels submitted for Phase II bond <br />release. These areas are shown on Map 2.0, titled "Phase II Bond Release-ParceUBlock Delineation", <br />of the bond release submittal, Map No. 1 of 2 received September 22, 1997 and Iv[ap No. 2 of Z <br />received September 9, 1996. <br />Reveaetation Success <br />History of revegetation sampling. Trapper's revegetation sampling methodology is presented on <br />page 2-1 of the bond release submittal. The Division reviewed Trapper's methodology in the teld <br />at the start of the summer of 199. During the summer of ] 99~, Trapper sampled lands that had been <br />Trapper Mine Page 6 12/14/98 <br />Phase II Bond Release <br />