Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to Christine Johnston <br />Mountain Coal T.R.67 <br />page 2 <br /> `~__L~' <br />` <br />Further, any fill proposed to remain in the bench fill must meet V <br />the requirements of the above cited regulations. In my opinion, ~ ~t <br />the stability analyses submitted to date demonstrate the acceptable <br /> <br />long term stability of the bench fill. However an additional AA <br />~ ~-~ ~,\~-~ <br />analysis will have to be performed for the partial backfilling ~~ \~ <br />necessary to eliminate the highwall cut face. ~ ~ <br /> rah <br />C <br />John mentioned a desire to bench the highwall cut slope and to , <br />topsoil and revegetate it immediately following construction. If r <br /> <br />possible he'd like to avoid redisturbing the upper half during y <br />~ <br />reclamation. I suggested that a stepped reclaimed configuration, 4 <br />~ ~ <br />which removed the outer crest of the bench fill and used it to 4 <br />0 , <br />`i~ <br />backfill the lower half of the highwall cut, might be acceptable. 0 <br />~ <br />~ a, ~ <br />This would result in a three or four terrace backfilled ~~ <br />configuration. The upper most terrace could serve as a cross-slope o <br />ditch to prevent gullying of the cut slope and to divert upslope ~ <br />,,<n, <br />drainage. John indicated he would consider these possibilities in ~~r,~'" <br />developing his amended proposal. ~o <br />Further Adequacy Comments <br />I recommended to John that he consider regrading the bench surface <br />to eliminate or minimize the need for the lengthy culvert. proposed <br />to drain the eastern extremity of the bench. I believe it will be <br />prone to maintenance problems during operation and I don't consider <br />it acceptable as a component of the reclaimed configuration. <br />attachment: <br />cc: David Berry <br />Doc: M:\COAL\JAP\MTG1TR67.ADQ <br />JP/JP <br />T <br />y <br />~ e G~~ ~ <br />/~ ~ ~ . <br />r ~~ <br />~ \ ~ C~~~~ <br />