Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~r Pages 2.05-128 through 2.05-171 were revised by TR 99-32. The PR 99-OS pages <br />covering this section were likewise outdated based upon this approval. Therefore, <br />only the revised pages within this group of pages will be revised with information <br />specific to PR 99-.05. For example, if page 2.05-138 is not revised by PR 99-OS <br />then it would show TR 99-32 in the age's footer. The following pages within~ <br />thJ)s sectio "have been revised: 2.05-~2, 133; 134; 135; 149~I50!151!152~153, <br />^I'S5, 160~61l16~and 164.I~The revised pages are attached. <br />~: See comments for number 8. Exhibit l4 was revised accordingly. The revised <br />Exhibit 14 page is attached. <br />dU. The acronyms were addressed in TR 99-32, therefore no further response is <br />required. <br />Alluvial Valley Floors; Rule 2.06.6 <br />11. These pages were intentionally left out of [he exhibit because they do not pertain <br />the Fish Creek AVF. The Division has all of the appropriate pages for the exhibit. <br />rJ 6( "T rw- <br />.-12. The typographical erzor on page 2.05-184.7 has been corrected, i.e. 26 versus 262, <br />and the revised page is attached. <br />13. Page 2.05-181.8 has been revised to discuss the potential impacts due to saturated <br />areas. The revised page is attached. d •~~ ,NI d~ <br />Mitigation of the Impacts of Mining Operations; Subsidence Rule 2.05.6 <br />14. Page 2.05-181.5 has been revised to remove the reference to undermining <br />residences in Section 22. Also, "outcomes" has been changed to "outcrops". The <br />revised page is attached. <br />I5. Page 2.05-181.5 has been revised to address the Division's concern. A copy of the <br />revised page is attached. <br />16. The second sentence in I.1 Background should read.."This area was east of the <br />original, Phase 1 Study Area and was not previously evaluated due to the distance <br />of the road from the cliff and generally favorable foreslope topography." A <br />revised page is attached. <br />17. There are several reasons why the section of the Twentymile cliff in the Phase 2 <br />Study Area will not be subject to the subsidence magnitudes cited in the <br />comment: <br />A. The depth to the coal seam is greater in the Northern Mining District (1,100 to <br />1,400 ft) than in the Eastern Mining District (800 to 1,000 ft). Accounting for <br />the increased width of the mining panels, maximum subsidence is expected <br />