Laserfiche WebLink
c. The narrative on Page 2.05.4-18 seems to indicate that 6" of <br />• t~soil will be spread directly on the current waste pile upon <br />final reclamation. This should be modified to include the <br />placement of 4 feet of non-toxic cover on the pile. Amass balance <br />should be provided which indicated the source of this material. <br />RESPONSE: Page 2.05.4-18 has been revised to address these issues. <br />In light of the fact that the waste rock at the Empire Energy Mines <br />is not acid or toxic, and following discussions on this issue with <br />CMLRD, Empire Energy proposes to utilize a minimum of two (2) feet <br />of non-toxic rooting material to cover the pile. <br />d. The remaining soils information aooears to be in order. It should <br />be noted that the topsoil replacement depths are somewhat loose <br />~.e., 6-12"). THis is not a major problem, but a statement such <br />as "a minimum of 6" will be replaced..." should be made. Since <br />• topsoil was not originally salvaged in many areas of the mine, the <br />main concern should be efficient redistribution of the soil which <br />was stockpiled. The current plan seems to do this. <br />RESPONSE: Pages 2.05.4-14, 2.05.4-18, 2.05.4-20, 2.05.4-21, <br />2.05.4-23, and page 2 of Exhibit 24 have been revised to address <br />this issue. <br />e. The operator should include a statement from the SCS that no prime <br />farmland exist in the permit area. <br />RESPONSE: Page 2.04.12-1 has been revised. A statement from the <br />SCS has been included as Figure 44a, page 2.04.12-2. <br />• <br />39-7 <br />