Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• Page 4 <br />begins on proposed pennit page 2.03-15 (dated 3/5/00). <br />May 24, 2000 <br />Please include "Regis College" and "Mack et al" in the list of owners of coal within the pemut boundary. Please <br />include the full names and addresses of these entities. <br />96. This item has not been adequately addressed. <br />Existing permit page 2.03-23 (dated 5!27/99) indicates that the Foidel Creek mine permit boundary in Section <br />25, TSN, R86W is "NC2 NW/4, SW/4 NW4". This is not, however, the boundary depicted on Map 23, "Mine <br />Plan". The boundary depicted on this Map includes only aportion ofthe S W/4 of the NW/4, not the entire''/< '/< <br />Please revise the description of the permit boundary on existing pemrit page 2.03-23 (dated 5!27/99) to correctly <br />match the boundary depicted on Map 23. <br />Please also revise the depiction of the pemrit boundary on Mapl (Surface Ownership) and Map 2 (Coal <br />Ownership) to match the revised permit boundary description in Section 25, TSN, R86W. This correction was <br />requested in DMG's adequacy letter of March 7, 2000. <br />97. This item has been addressed, with the exception of the following minor items. <br />"fCC has provided a proposed replacement page 2.03-24 (dated 5/3/00). Liserting this page immediately after <br />existing pemvt page 2.03-23 (dated 5!27/99), however, will eliminate the inforration pertaining to the TCC <br />pemut boundary for Sections 26, 27, 28, and 29 in TSN, R86W. <br />Please revise proposed replacement page 2.03-24 (dated 5/3/00) to include the information pertaining to the <br />description of the TCC permit boundary for Sections 26, 27, 28, and 29 in TSN, R86W. <br />Please also revise proposed replacement page 2.03-24 (dated 5/3/00) to replace the " 3)" in the front of the <br />paragraph begins with "CERTIFICATION OF NAME CHANGE" (caps currently exist in the permit). <br />99. This item has been adequately addressed <br />] 00. This item has been adequately addressed <br />101. This item has been adequately addressed. <br />107. This item has been adequately addressed. <br />108. This item has not been adequately addressed. <br />The Division, in its May 1, 2000 adequacy letter, stated that it was our understanding that during the <br />development of Gateroad 6 Right, a fault was encountered near the 25~' crosscut that exhibited groundwater <br />inflow into the mine. The Division went on to say that we thought that this fault appeared to exist in either the E <br />'/~ of Section 29, TSN, R86W, or in the W % of Section 28, TSN, R86W, and requested Maps 6 and 23 be <br />revised to depict the location ofthis fault. The Division additionally requested that ifthis fault were extensive <br />enough to be crossed by Cross Sections A-A' or B-B', TCC should also revise these cross sections to depict the <br /> <br />