Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Disturbance" line as shown on the 12/19/96 version of Map 2.05.4-1 and the "Preliminary <br />Extent of Surface Mining" line shown on the 11/27/96 version of Figure t of Exhibit 13. <br />Please address now whether the "Extent of Surface Mine Disturbance" line shown on the <br />7/1/97 version of Map 2.05.4-1 will be the surface mine disturbance extent the applicant <br />wishes DMG to approve. Further, please commit to ensuring this same line will be reflected <br />in the revised Figure I of Exhibit 13. <br />66. The applicant's response is inadequate at this time. Our March 3, 1997 question asked the <br />applicant to resolve an apparent discrepancy between Figure I of Exhibit l3 and Map <br />2.05.4-1. This discrepancy was with regard to differences in the elevation of the tops of the <br />proposed excess spoil fills shown in these two maps. <br />The applicant provided a revised Map 2.05.4-1, and stated on page 9 of their July 1, 1997 <br />response that the tops of the fills would be below the lowest coal seam to be surface [Wined, <br />as shown on the latest edition of the map. <br />Map 2.05.4-1 does not show the current outcrop line of the lowest coal seam to be surface <br />mined. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain if the tops of the fills will be in fact be <br />below the elevation of the outcrop. It would be beneficial of Map 2.05.4-1 had the outcrop <br />line added to it, especitilly since the tops of the fills range in elevation from 7030' (Fill 5) to <br />7140' (Fi114). <br />67. The applicant's response to this question is inadequate at this time. The applicant has <br />indicated that the response is forthcoming. <br />From a telephone conversation with the applicant's representation of July 8, 1997, the <br />Division understands that CTL/I'hompson will include in its revision of Exhibit 13 a <br />discussion of how the backfilled areas of the surface mine that will be constructed between <br />the valley fills will meet the regulatorily-required l.3 factor of safety value. The Division <br />will therefore stipulate that the revised Exhibit 13 include such a discussion. <br />68. The applicant has indicated that its response to this question is forthcoming. The applicant's <br />response to this question is therefore inadequate at [his time. <br />69. The applicant's response needs some additional clarification. The applicant's response <br />states that the berms "will be located along the surface mine perimeter in areas where fills do <br />not extend below the lowest coal seam to be mined". The response seems to conflict with <br />the applicants response to Question 66, which states, "A revised Post-Mine Topography <br />Map...shows fills below the lowest coal seam to be mined." Additionally confusing is the <br />statement in the recently-revised page 2.05-10 that the berm will be left in place in areas not <br />bounded by fills, which would seem to indicate that in areas bounded by fills a berm would <br />not be left. <br />To address this issue satisfactorily, the Division requests the applicant to revise the sentence <br />on page 2.05-10 from "... in areas no[ bounded by hollow tills." to "...in areas where <br />