Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Christine Johnston <br />Mountain Coal Company <br />Page 11 <br />April 14, 1997 <br />Please provide additional information, including a map depicting the disturbed azea <br />boundary, to verify MCC's estimate of 62 acres. <br />59. The pre-mining and post-mining cross sections provided by MCC (Map 59A) use such <br />a heavy line to depict the reclaimed topography [hat there is as much as ten feet of <br />elevation in the line itself. The heavy line also obscures the pre-mining and post- <br />construction sections. Please provide a revised set of cross sections which are accurate <br />and legible. <br />60. MCC notes that the net cut volume for the substation is 77,000 CY, and that the material <br />will be used as fill for other azeas. In order to accurately determine the cost to reclaim <br />the area, we need to know the amount of material which will be taken to each site. <br />61. MCC provided adequate cross sections and the locations of those sections in its March 11, <br />1997 submittal. <br />62. Please see the Division's comments on Comment 55. <br />63. MCC's response is acceptable, with the exception of the information required by <br />Comment 55. <br />64. MCC's response is adequate with their Mazch 1 ], 1997 submittal; the vertical alignment <br />of all roads is now shown on the maps within Exhibit 69. <br />65. The Division has received a copy of the agreement with the Corps of Engineers for the <br />Sylvester Gulch wetland mitigation, and is in agreement with MCC's response on Mazch <br />7. 1997. <br />66. There is still some discrepancy between MCC's estimate of disturbed acres and that which <br />the Division has calculated (see Comment 58), but MCC's response is otherwise adequate. <br />Once the issue regazding total disturbed acreage is resolved, the Division will estimate <br />costs based on the replacement of up to 18" of topsoil on all disturbed azeas (topsoil <br />stockpiles excepted). <br />67. MCC submitted a revised Map 53B and "General Arrangement of Site Layout Showing <br />Sinking Facilities and Services" map, so the response to this comment is adequate. <br />68. MCC revised the Exhibit 66 text, so the response to this comment is adequate where the <br />reclamation cost estimate is concerned. However, MCC notes in closing this response that <br />"leaving the geogrid type engineered embankments in place will create significantly less <br />disturbance during reclamation and will also provide additional stability to reclaimed <br />slopes". Please provide available data concerning the permanence and long term <br />