Laserfiche WebLink
C -2010 -089 PARNos. 1- 1A -1B, 2- 2A -2B, 3 <br />New Horizon North Mine Page 42 of 60 <br />b) Please incorporate an additional line into each of the sections which depicts the <br />anticipated limits of the reining- related excavation. <br />The Division's question could have been better worded. Please illustrate, across each <br />cross section, the location of the anticipated pit floor. Item resoled in Dee -201I <br />response. <br />5. The cross sections provided on Map 2.05.4 -1 do not appear to completely portray the lateral <br />limits of the permit area. Please extend the limits of the cross sections to clearly show the <br />County Roads adjacent to the mining; the right -of -way; any buffer (25 feet ?) between the <br />disturbed area and the right -of -way; and the location of the Haul Roads. Item res h'ed in <br />lllir3> -2011 response. <br />6. In the introductory paragraph, please add a statement that this section addresses the <br />requirements of 2.05.3(6); 2.05.4(2)(c) and 4.14. Item resolved in Dec -2011 response: <br />2.05.4(2)(d) Removal, storage and r°edistr°ibitt or, of topsoil and subsoil <br />PAP section 2.05.4(2)(d) page 13 contains the statement, "The actual amount of topsoil <br />salvage has been less than the amount estimated in the soil survey." Please explain why this <br />has been the case in the New Horizon No. 2 Mine. Is this due to poor salvage technique, <br />poor soil resource evaluation, poor topsoil storage methods, or some other explanation? The <br />Division is concerned that WFC does not explain topsoil volume shortfall. Please provide <br />an explanation of this statement and how WFC plans to rectify this problem. Item r °easo &ei <br />in 31ay -2011 response.. <br />2. In PAP section 2.05.4(2)(d) pages 14 and 15, WFC states that they will replace topsoil on <br />the contour except on "steep" slopes, Please provide a definition of what WFC defines as <br />"steep" slopes. It rrr resohvil in Utty-2011 response. . <br />3. Please provide an explanation of how mixing topsoil and subsoil together complies with <br />section 34- 33- 120(2)(e) of the Act. <br />In May -2011, WFC responded thatNH2 apparently is the only mine in Colorado required to <br />salvage A horizon separately for B horizon soils. The Keenesburg Mine salvaged A horizon <br />soils in separate lifts from the B horizon soils. This mine is no longer salvaging topsoil, but <br />the operator replaces topsoil in separate lifts. Please provide a discussion that demonstrates <br />to the Division that salvage of topsoil and subsoil in one combined lift so that "all areas <br />affected by surface coal mining operations shall be restored in a timely manner to conditions <br />that are capable of supporting the uses which they were capable of supporting before any <br />mining or to higher or better uses achievable under criteria and procedures of 4.16" (Rule <br />4.16.1(1)). <br />I1 Fkels trial revegeiat on success criteria cart be mel irith a sitr % lift to soil relnoiwl <br />,Vero." the Division sloes not tiara evil rice loproi> drat iwo -lift sa/w ge is more <br />M11,6 /r' is eolls' thwl sitl l -lrft s d3'gg -ef )r rei,,egetc4tior'r Lher "elbre, a <br />sin, le lift to soil r enio wil plan is cipproi,ect Item reas lit t in Dec -2011 response. <br />4. The first sentence of the Introduction to Section 2.05.4(2)(d) states that the section outlines <br />WFC's plan to meet the requirements of Section 2.05.4(2)(d). It appears that the <br />