REP17811 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The report is in partial compliance with this rule. 13.5 acres were reported as disturbed during 2005. The name of the azea, 6MN Intake Shaft Facility, the number of acres disturbed, 13.5 acres was reported, but the location, on a map, was not. Rule 2.04.13(1)(c) Location and number of acres bacl~lled and graded during that year; The report is in compliance with this rule. None were backfilled and graded. Rule 2.04.13(1)(d) Location and number acres topsoiled during that year; The report is in compliance with this rule. None were topsoiled. Rule 2.04.13(1)(e) The species, location and number of acres of vegetation planted during that year, including any augmented seeding or cultural practices; and The report is in compliance with this rule. None were vegetated. Rule 2.04.13(1)(f) Location, number of acres and date of planting for all previously revegetated areas. The report is incomplete with regard to this rule. A number of acres are reported and activates described, but where (location) is not identified. These activities are not reflected on the Division form. The operator is asked to explain. Rule 2.04.13(2) The permittee may provide additional monitoring information as required by the approved permit. The operator submitted the Division reclamation report as the ARR this year, with a brief cover letter and Table 1. Cumulative total acres backfilled and graded, topsoiled, and seeded are reported as none on the form, but a number of disturbed areas have been reported as reclaimed. The operator is asked to explain. In addition, the operator misunderstood the requests of the Division form regazding cumulative totals to date for the life of mine. These items aze outlined in an adequacy letter to the operator. files: electronic: Reports, ARR C1982-056 Permit: C1982056 (Foidel Creek Mine) C:\bgw\My Documents\Foidel Creek\ARRs\2005 ARR Review.doc 2004 ARR Review, C-1982-056, page 2 oft pages