2011-12-01_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010089 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: C2010089
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 12/1/2011
• Doc Name: Preliminary Adequacy Review No. 2
• From: Western Fuels Association
• To: DRMS
• Email Name: MLT
• Email Name: SB1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

in one case, scarification is optional, while in the other it is done as a matter of course.
Please review and revise for clarity, as warranted.
Response —Regraded spoil material will be scarified. Item 2 in page 4 has been
revised.
12. In the last paragraph on page 5, the sixth line gives the overburden thickness (above LDx) as
60 to 65 feet. Comparison with the cross sections seems to indicate that the thickness ranges
from 60 to 90 feet. Please review, and revise the text if warranted. Additionally, please
describe the thickness of the two thin clay ("Bentonite") beds.
Response — The text has been revised to give the overburden thickness of 60 to 90
feet. The thickness of the two thin clay beds is described in the second full paragraph
in page 5 of Section 2.04.6 Geology.
13. Soil Suitability is addressed beginning on page 9 of Section 2.05.4(2)(d). At the top of page
10 is a table, which purports to be reproduced from Table 2.04.9 -2. (Rather than being
found in the NHN application, the table appears to have been derived from the New Horizon
Mine permit; the table should be numbered differently.) There appears to be some
confusion over the suitability parameters and criteria that will apply to replaced soil, subsoil,
and overburden. Appendix I of the WyDEQ guideline lists several parameters that are not
included in the table on page 10. Please review the suitability parameters and criteria, to
ensure that the application consistently presents the appropriate information.
Response —As mentioned previously, many of the WDEQ parameters where excluded
as being irrelevant to the NHN Mine area due to site specific information
documenting that they are will acceptable limits and there is no need to sample them.
Agreement for this approach was given to WFC by Ms. Sandy Brown and Dan
Mathews in two consultation meetings held in Grand Junction.
14. Available topsoil resources, as established by the baseline soil survey, are depicted on Map
2.04.9 -3 Topsoil Salvage Map. A table is presented in the lower right comer of this map,
showing salvage volumes by soil type and polygon. Soil Polygons are numbered 1 thru 45,
and are of varying sizes and soil types. Each polygon consists of a single soil type; the
volume of soil available is given for each polygon, in BCY (bulk cubic yards). The Division
has additional requests regarding the data presented in the table on Map 2.04.9 -3, as follows:
a) Soil polygons 9 and 10 straddle the line between the Glasier and Meehan properties.
Please divide each of these polygons by landowner, e.g. 9A and 10A for Glasier, and
9B and l OB for Meehan.
Response — In a telephone conference call between Murari Shrestha and DRMS on 1
November and again on 3 November 2011, the DBMS agreed this there was no need
to quantify soil materials by ownership parcel.
b) Soil polygons 34 and 35 straddle the line between the Meehan and Garvey properties.
Please divide each of these polygons by landowner, e.g. 34A and 35A for Meehan, 34B
and 35B for Garvey.
Page 23