Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Mike Boulay <br />Division ofMineralr and Geo%gy <br />Page 2 <br />4. Ar nguestea, SCC utilized the Division s new ARR page 1 rejwrt fmm. The Division identified several dirmpancier ndth <br />reporred acreages for active mining areas, facilities or long-terns minin8, disturbed acres, and backfilled andBmded acres during <br />aurprelirninary review. On July 21, 2005 SCC rabmitted revised foimr for all three miner via facsimile. Ongina! copier of <br />the ~evued fornrr should be submitted to the Division for inclusion into each AFtA, rzrpectively. <br />There still appearr to be some inconristencier~etween theARR report farnr and the 2004 Reclamation Map. The Calendar <br />Year acreages on the report form do not match precisely with the amountrgiven on the 2004 Reclamation Map. The biggest <br />discrepancy it with the backfilled andgraded acres. The Reclamation Map shows 77.1 acrzr back, filled andgraded in 2004 <br />and the report form indicates 100.8. Please recheck the Calendar Year totals reported on the form to ensure that they match <br />the reclamation map. Ako the numberpresented on page 2 of theARR report text doer not match the reviredARR report <br />form acreages. Please ensure that the acreages are the same and accurately reported on the reclamation map, the ARR Report <br />Form, and page 2 of the report text and submit revised page(sJ, ARR form and map. <br />Response: SCC has revisited the 2004 ARR acreages and maps in great detail and has made additional revisions <br />to both. Updated text, report form, and maps are attached. <br />Sebtember 27. 2005 Ader~pu cv Comments Regarding the 2004 ARR <br />• It appearr from the information provided on pager 1 and 2 of the 2004 ARR, that the specified average topsoil replacement <br />thickness of 1.8 feet far the mine area war not met in 2004, and that rtockbikd roil volume may be insufficient to meet the <br />specified average topsoil replacement thickness in the future. <br />Please address the reasons for the discrepancy with respect to average soil replacement thickness m <br />the 2004 reclamation area and for future reclamation auras. Also, please provide a sketch ormap of <br />the 2004 reclamation parcel showing sample locations and measured thickness for each location. <br />Response: Review of Tab 21, Mineso$ Reconstruction, indicates that in June 1995,1.8 feet of average topsoil <br />replacement was the antidpated thickness based on baseline soil mapping and estimate salvage ability. SCC has <br />updated the actual soil replacement thickness as portions of the graded areas are topsoiled. These estimated <br />replacement thicknesses aze updated, in the ARR, annually based on stockpile surveys. This is the best that can <br />be done, especially since the Division has requested variable replacement thickness over the mine site. Once the <br />entire mine azea is topsoiled then the mean replacement thickness can be determined. <br />Tab 21 discussions also indicate that lesser amounts of topsoil aze adequate as stated ... `DePuit, 1984, points out <br />thatplant community composition and diversity for rangeland is often reached at shallower roil depths than what is required for <br />maxzmum production This phenomenon apparently exists at the Seneca Mine in northwestern Colorado where Pfannenrtiel and <br />Wendt (7985) demonstrated that 0.5 feet of soil applied to Waage spoil in 1976 bar produced a native looking ragebnuhgrarrland <br />community with a shrrrb density 1,450 stems/acre." Therefore, in the event that insufficient topsoil is available fox the <br />1.8 feet replacement, the revegetation success will not suffer dramatically. <br />A cagy of a reed tag, two mYiftcation letterr from Granite Seed Company, andTabk 04.2 wen rubmittcd, to document reed <br />mix componenk used in the 2004 reeding. Then seem to be a number of contradictions and inronsistencies in the information <br />rubmittec~ and between documentation submitted and the approved reed mix. <br />a) The approved mix specifier Secar bluebunch wbeatgrasr, whereas Table 04.2 specifies beardless bluebunch (var. inerme). <br />The reed tag and both certification letters specify Secar bluebunch. lp6y does Table 04.2 differ from the other <br />documents? <br />6J The approved mix specifier use of `Travois"alfalfa csrltivar. Seed tags and certification letters indicate "Ranger" and <br />`Zndak"alfalfa crrltivarr were seeded The renewal findings document indicates that `Travair"alfalfa was selected <br />