My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-05-17_REVISION - C1982056
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1982056
>
2016-05-17_REVISION - C1982056
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:22:06 PM
Creation date
5/17/2016 10:35:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/17/2016
Doc Name
Adequacy Response
From
Twetymiel Coal, LLC
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
MR296
Email Name
JLE
DIH
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
designs which include freeboard of no less than 0.3 feel for the proposed diversion ditches or provide a <br />justification to the Division discussing the reason designs without freeboard meet the requirements of Rade <br />4.05.3(7)(b). <br />Response: In talking with our consultant who completed the SEDCAD runs, they did include the <br />required freeboard as one of the input parameters for the runs, however, it was not reflected in the design <br />documentation. We have also specified significantly more freeboard in the project scope -of -work for the <br />contractor who will construct the ditches. We are providing revised design documentation with these <br />responses reflecting inclusion of adequate freeboard. <br />2.05.3(5) — Topsoil <br />7. Please revise the narrative regarding topsoil on proposed revised page 2.05-84.14 and Table 49A; if necesscny, <br />depending on the soil resources identified within the proposed disturbed area bused own your response to the <br />soil resource inforinatnon adequacy' revnerk' nssate cited m section 2.04.9 of this review. Likewise please revise <br />the topsoil ananrative in the mine facilities section of the permit regarding the proposed 9 East Borehole on <br />proposed revised page 2.03-45.30 if necessury. <br />Response: The discussions of soil material handling and volumes in the revised permit text, and Table 49A have <br />been reviewed and revised, as appropriate, to reflect the site-specific soils information referenced in the previous <br />response to Item 5. Copies of revised text and table accompany these responses. <br />2.05.4(2) — Reclamation Plan <br />8. It appears the pre -mine land use of'the proposed affected area is pustureland based on Map 3 of the permit. <br />Proposed revised page 2.03-106 1 indicates that the affected area will be seeded with the rangeland seed <br />mixtaare. According to section 2.05.5 of the permit, TC will reclaim the affected area to the premine land uses. <br />Given this, it wouldseem the pastureland seed mixture would be wore appropriate for use. Please revise this <br />page accordingly. <br />9. Proposed revised page 2 05-106.1 does not follow the preceding page. Please review this section and insure <br />the pagination, orgaraa�ataon and tcXt follows the preceding page and following pages. <br />Response: As indicated, Map 3 shows the premining land use for the project area as "Pastureland". This <br />map also shows the premining land use for much of the Mine Permit Area as "Cropland". As discussed in <br />the permit text (page 2.04-2). the definition of "land use" is generally related to management practices <br />rather than vegetation types or communities. At the time the permit was issued, the defined premining <br />land uses were based on historic management practices. Over the intervening period of over 30 years, <br />those practices have changed, and as noted in the permit text (page 2.04-3), "At the time of Permit <br />Revision No. 99-05, cropland was no longer the dominant land use within the Permit Area." This is <br />reflected by the most recent update of the Premining Land Use Map, Map 313 (12/93). Given that land use <br />patterns and practices are dynamic and may change over time, the premining land use for a given location may <br />most appropriately be defined as the use existing at the time of mining -related disturbance. <br />Rule 1.04(71)(6) defines Pastureland as lands, "actively managed for grazing, browsing, or for occasional <br />hay production" and Rangeland as lands, "on which plant cover is principally valuable for forage". While <br />there is not a strong distinction between pastureland and rangeland, the permit text (page 2.04-4) indicates <br />that rangeland differs from pastureland, '...primarily as management is only achieved by regulating the <br />intensity of grazing and season of use, rather than improvements (fertilization, interseeding, etc.) which <br />may be implemented above and beyond grazing management." Given this clarifying statement. the <br />current (premining) use of the lands within the project area would most appropriately be identified as <br />rangeland. The referenced page has been reviewed and revised for continuity. Copies of revised text accompany <br />these responses. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.