Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• Page 3 <br />May 24, 2000 <br />(dated 4/1/99), a "response" to Rules 2.04.6(1)(a}{e). The response provided by TCC indicates that Rule <br />2.04.6(1) pertains solely to surface mining. This is incorrect. Rule 2.04.6(2) pertains to surface mining. Rule <br />2.04.6(3) pertains to underground mining. Rules 2.04.6(] xa}{e) pertain to all miming operations. <br />Please insert, on existing permit page 2.04-13 (dated 4/]/99), text that addresses a "response" to Rules <br />2.04.6(1)(a}(e). if the information required by Rules 2.04.6(1)(a}{e)may befound in other places within the <br />permit, please indicate, for insertion into the permit's text, wfiere the information pertaining to each Wile <br />[(2.04.6(1 xa), 2.04.6(1 xb), etc] maybe found elsewhere in the permit. It is recorrunended that this new text be <br />inserted into existing pemvt page 2.04-12 (dated 4/1 /99), immediately following the phrase, "(e) Assist in the <br />preparation of the subsidence control plan under 2.05.6(6)", and immediately preceding the phrase, "(2) Surface <br />Miming>, <br />55. This item has been adequately addressed. <br />56. This item has been adequately addressed. <br />63. This item has been adequately addressed, with the following minor exceptions: <br />(a) The last paragraph on existing permit page 2.04-16 (dated 3/5/99) is different from the first paragraph on <br />existing page 2.04-16.1 (dated 3/5/99). Please correct this discrepancy. <br />(b) The last paragraph on proposed permit page 2.04-16.3 (dated 5/3/00), which begins with "pH", doesn't <br />seem to make sense. The sentence discusses the "...reclamation suitability of these roof and floor in...". <br />Please correct this. <br />(c) For the proposed permit pages to flow correctly into the existing permit, proposed permit page 2.04-17.1 <br />(3/28/00) should be removed from the submittal, and existing permit page 2.0417.1 (dated 3/5/99) should be <br />removed from the pernit. <br />72. This item has been adequately addressed <br />73. This item has been adequately addressed. <br />74. This item has been adequately addressed. <br />82. This item has been adequately addressed. <br />86. This item had been adequately addressed. <br />90. This item has been adequately addressed. <br />93. This item has not been adequately addressed. <br /> <br />Map 2 indicates that "Regis College" and "Mack et al"own the coal in the E % of the NE '/ of Section 2, TSN, <br />R86W. This tract of land lies within the Foidel Creek Mine permit boundary. However, these entities have not <br />been included in the Gst of coal owners entitled "Coal Ownership within Life of Mine permit boundary" that <br />