Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />' ~ 6. <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />r <br />Comment: The applicant states that a series of conveyors will be used for the <br />mining operation. Please indicate the location of the conveyor(s) and <br />provide designs for the ground level conveyors and elevated conveyors. <br />In addition, the conveyor corridor between Phases I and II will need to <br />be noted as "affected azea," and depicted on the appropriate exhibit. <br />Response: Exhibit "C-3" depicts the conceptual conveyer alignments for the Lyons <br />amendment as well as the existing conveyor alignment, which is <br />approximately 4,000 feet in length. To the existing conveyor system, <br />WMI will add approximately 2,500 feet of portable conveyor. Because <br />WMI's Lyons conveyor system is totally portable, there are no <br />permanent structures needed to extend the existing conveyor system to <br />serve the amended area. <br />~7 Comment: During the pre-operation inspection of August 20, 1999, the apphcant <br />indicated that the mining sequence would be different than what was <br />submitted to the Division. Please revise the exhibits to reflect the <br />proposed sequence of mining for the Lyons Pit. <br />Response: The current mine sequence for the amended Lyons permit is as follows: <br />• Fvst, Phase I, Stages 1-6 <br />• Second, Phase II, Stages I-2 <br />• Third, Phase III, Stages 1-4 <br />• Fourth, Phase II, Stages 3-7 <br />See Attachment #3 (Exhibit "C-3"-Mining Plan, Map Notes) for <br />/ revised mining sequence. <br />' J8. Comment: Please identify the nature of the stratum immediately beneath the <br />material to be mined. <br />Response: Lyons Pit bedrock is identified as follows: <br />• Pierre Shale (east end) <br />• Niobraza Shale (center section) <br />• Carlile Shale (west end) <br />~9. Comment: Exhibit 3-C depicts the location of tests holes, and indicates the <br />thickness of overburden and gravel. Will azea be mined to the gravel <br />depth depicted by the test bole? <br />' DMG Adequacy Review Response Page 3 <br />