APPCOR11626 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Derry Ferguson - ~ - June 21, 1993 Further, the next to the last paragraph on page 5-4 discusses "coal removal projected by (segments) which are shown on Map 5-2 as A-1 ~ kti through I-2. Overburden removal is described by lifts which have been ~~ ~;~ appropriately E-1, and F-1, shown on Map 5-2". Unfortunately, coal segments D-1 and G-l, and H-1, aren't readily identifiable on the map as separate segments, and an overburden lift has apparently not been identified fo r the area over coal segment A-1. Additionally, in the same paragraph, the applicant discusses "Three Sections (l, 2, and 3) indicate the geographic location of mining activities". Yet on Map 5-2, these are not identified. ,• ~~ At the bottom of page 5-4, the applicant states "As the potholes are i ~ created, they will be filled with soil materials..." Please identify ~ '~ where this so il is coming from. .-Another contradiction exlsts on page 5-7. In the first paragraph, the "~' applicant states "However, Sections 2 and 3 will not be discussed by Segments." However, in the paragraph immediately preceding this statement, at the bottom of page 5-6, the applicant states "The west portion of section 2 (segments I-1 and I-2)...". I the next to last paragraph on page 5-7, the applicant states "the entire fill (excess spoil area) is designed to store up to 2.5 million yards. Under the current mining plan only some 1.0 million yards will be stored in the fill until it is returned to the mine...The selective placement of the first 1.0-1.5 million yards adjacent to the initial pit will minimize out-of-pit fill costs..." Additionally on page 5-21, the applicant states "The fill will initially have less than 1.5 million yards of overburden ..." These statements appear contradictory in that a range of 500,000 cy of materials will require a bond estimate for the larger figure of 1.5 million cubic yards. Please provide the following figures: the current amount of material in the excess spoil pile, the amount proposed to be added under the current application, and the amount proposed to be replaced in the open pit, under worst case scenario conditions, that reflects expected swell factors and achievement of approximate original topography.. Fi lly, on page 5-8, in the paragraph starting with "Section 2, after fining", the applicant states "the sandstone surface m~ (my emphasis) be fractured by blasting ... This should be changed to "will be fractured" F' ally, the application states the permit is for a five year term, yet ~s Phase I will be for 28 months (5-4 and 5-5> and Phase II will be for 34 months (5-4>. This puts mining operation at 62 months, or five years and two months. Please address this discrepancy. ~~ On page 5-31, it is apparent that the "retainer" sandstone ledges left between the blasted-out rubble zones are to be left uncovered. This is because the applicant states that rubble zones will be five feet in depth and then covered with four feet of overburden. Please revise this language to reflect a commitment by the applicant to cover the "retainer" ledges as well.