Laserfiche WebLink
Tamme Bishop, P.E. <br />January 9, 2013 <br />Page 3 <br />rationale of the topsoil re- distribution plan. Some of the topics that should be discussed <br />(or reference the appropriate section of permit): 1) In the Greasewood Flats area an <br />average of 24 inches of topsoil will be salvaged but only 12 inches of topsoil will be <br />replaced. Will the Greasewood Flats area, with half of the original soil volume, be able <br />to achieve the vegetation requirements of the post mining land use, 2) the office area is <br />to receive 24 inches of topsoil but no salvage volumes are given for this area. How much <br />topsoil (and depth) was salvaged from the office area and where is the soil now (if <br />disturbed pre- SMCRA, include in the discussion), 3) the chart on page 2.05 -27 indicates <br />that the office area is an AVF. Also discuss how the functions of the AVF are going to <br />be restored with 24 inches of topsoil, or reference the appropriate section of the permit. <br />88. Please refer to Item 14 above regarding bedrock groundwater monitoring. <br />89. There is still no proposed plan for laboratory analyses for the currently monitored alluvial <br />wells listed on page 2.05 -61. Table 3 Groundwater Parameter list was added (page 2.05- <br />64) but on page 2.05 -61 there is no mention of the frequency for obtaining samples for <br />laboratory analysis. Please update the discussion on page 205 -61 to include the <br />frequency for obtaining laboratory analyses for the alluvial wells. <br />105. The Division has not received a revised Figure 4.2 -3 with the original PR -2 application or <br />with the adequacy response submittal dated October 16, 2012. Please clarify this <br />response. <br />106. The approved Appendix N (TR -16) appears to contain erroneous information regarding <br />groundwater flow direction through the coal seam. Please check this information and <br />make the appropriate corrections. <br />113. Rule 2.05.6(6)(a) also requires an inventory of all structures in addition to renewable <br />resource lands. MCM's response indicates that no renewable resource lands exist within <br />the area of the mine plan in question, but there is no documentation of structures. Please <br />provide an inventory of all structures which exist within the proposed permit and adjacent <br />area. <br />If you have questions, please contact me. <br />Sincerely, <br />Michael P. Boulay <br />Environmental protection Specialist <br />C: Corey Heaps/McClane Canyon Mining, LLC <br />Denver File./DRMS <br />