Laserfiche WebLink
Walker, Byron <br />From: Walker, Byron <br />Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 3:41 PM <br />To: Jerry M. Nettleton (E-mail) <br />Cc: <br />Subject: Hernandez, Dan <br />TR-44 <br />Adequacy Response <br />C-1982-05j/ <br /> , <br />, <br />Dear Mr. Nettleton, thank you for the advance copies (e-mail of September 9, 2004) of your responses to our 2nd <br />adequacy letter. <br />Responses to Items 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 73, and 75 are complete and adequate. <br />The following requests follow our brief telephone conversation of today. Our review of your responses to Items 66, 71, and <br />77 is incomplete, pending receipt of the maps. Receipt and review of the maps, and receipt of E-mail transmittals of <br />revised pages 2.04-50.1, 2.05-45.3, 2.05-45.5 or 2.05-106, and 2.05-84.2 (as was done for this advance review) and an <br />autocad file or facsimile of an extract of Map 1 W-50 in response to the following comments will suffice for moving the <br />application to a proposed decision. If the maps and materials arrive a.m. tomorrow, we should be able to complete our <br />review and determine if we need to revise, to correct latent items, the scheduled date of September 10th for promulgation <br />of a proposed decision. <br />With regard to Item 61 of your response. Please see Rule 4.07.1(1). Please add [suggest as a last line to line 5 of page <br />2.04-50.1 (08/06/04)] that the holes were backfilled with cuttings. <br />With regard to Item 69. Please revise topsoil volume figures on page 2.05-84.2 (08118/04) as well. There is a diminishing <br />relationship between permit area, permitted disturbance area, and area of actual disturbance. We have suggested that the <br />permitted area of disturbance for the access road be the 100-foot-wide corridor to allow you flexibility to accommodate field <br />conditions. A qualified 35-foot-wide disturbance of "in most cases", "typically -will fall within", "will generally correspond" <br />does not define the limits of permitted disturbance nor quantify the disturbance for reclamation cost estimates. Please <br />clarify the text to quantify what area of permitted disturbance is proposed. The approved area of disturbance and the <br />reclamation cost estimate will reflect this figure. <br />With regard to Item 74. Please add final pit closure as-built certifications here (change "-- following temporary closure." to <br />read "-- following temporary and final reclamation closure."), or to revised {09/08104) page 2.05-106 (suggest as an <br />addition to line 41). <br />With regard to Item 76. Please revise page 2.05-45.5 (09/08/04), line 23, to indicate that the materials excavated for the <br />collar of the shaft will be placed in the prepared (excavated) cuttings pit. <br />With regard to Item 77, please add in the legend to Map 1 W-50 the yellow contour lines identified as original (undisturbed) <br />and post-mining topographic contours. <br />Please call me if you would like the rational and rule requirements that form a basis for the above requests <br />Yours truly, Byron G. Walker, EPS <br />