Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• Response -Page 2.05-39 has been corrected. <br />31a. Fills 1, 2, and 3 were not investigated in the CTL/Thompson investigation, Phase [ (see <br />tte Map/Test Pit Locations, Figure 1). Please explain how this fits into the proposed mine plan. <br />Year two mining would directly impact these fill azeas. <br />Response - LCC's geotechnical consultant does not expect problems with these fills based on <br />their other analyses in the area (Letter to LLC from CTL/THOMPSON, INC. dated July 27, <br />2001, attached). Stability of these fills will be better determined after mining commences and <br />equipment and fresh rock faces are available for evaluation. LCC will submit stability analyses <br />for these fills within 30 days of them becoming accessible. <br />31b. Page 2.05-36 identifies fills as head of hollow fills. Is this text consistent with all design <br />ortnation provided? <br />~l~a <br />p'. ~rt"~ ~ esponse -These fills are not considered head-of-hollow fills. <br />~. ' P, Jr <br />~ 32. Please revise Map 2.05.4-1 with a limit of surface mine disturbance line of unique style and <br />ne weight (or color) [Rules 2.07.7(6) and 2.10.1(1)]. Please revise the map to provide 10-foot <br />contour lines on reclaimed areas, or clearly show how reclamation contours tie into those of <br />undisturbed azeas [Rule 2.05.4(2)(c)]. Please add that portion of the permit boundary to the map <br />_~ that is located within the area of the map [Rule 2.10.1(3)]. A common means of reference to <br />cross sections is a divided circle tivith the drawing on which they appear designated in the lower <br />~ half. Please conform to this standard engineering practice on this map (or provide across- <br />reference table on the map). Please add `'direction of view" arrows to the road cross section <br />(NW comer of the map). Please add a legend to the map for all non-standard lines (other than <br />USGS) d symbols (limit of disturbance, proposed road, the green line in the NE corner) (Rule <br />2.10.1). If the dashed line road is permanent, please adjust the final contours accordingly. Please <br />bring Figure 1 Exhibit 13 (the version used in this review is dated 11/27/96) into agreement with <br />Map 2.OS.4-I dated 04.20.01. [f differences are due to different phases or periods of mining, <br />please differentiate between them [Rule 2.05.3(2)(a)]] <br />~J~~~ Resnonse -Map 2.05.4-] has been revised and is attached. Figure 1 from Exhibit 13 will be <br />1~~ t revised to be in agreement with Map 2.05.4-1 and forwarded to the Division when available. <br />~~~i~t'r ~ 33. As indicated in your letter of July 26, 1997, please include on the revised Map 2.05.4-1 the <br />~" outcrop of the lowest coal seam to be mined. Please make it of a unique line weight, style, or <br />color, and identify it in a legend. Likewise, as requested above, indicate the limits of disturbance <br />on Map 2.05.4-1. <br />l,) '~ Response -Map 2.05.4-1 has been revised to show the outcrop of the lowest coal seam to be <br />V~'1 ~~ mined and limits of disturbance. <br />1I \\ oY~.(3~4 Please provide individual designs for proposed excess spoil fill (Rule 4.09.1(2)]. The designs <br />• ray reference details shown in the Report by CTL/Thompson and other portions of the permit <br />