REV103292 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

an Mathews 2 March 29 2006 5) The Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) permits listed in Permit Appendix E have 2004 expiration dales. Please provide updated permits and amend the listing with current permit numbers and expiration dates. CAM -Updated APCD permits listed in Appendix E. APCD permits are enclosed 6) Figure 2.1-1 MINE PLAN AND SEQUENCE MAP, shows projections for mining panels within fhe currently approved permit area, but also depicts future panel layouts to the south of the permit area, extending into the Munger Canyon permit area. This could lead to some confusion, because mining is not approved in those locations under either the McClave or Munger permit. Please amend the Figure 2.1-1 to depict only those operations approved underthe current permit. Longer term future mine plan projections forareas not within the approved permit area should be depicted on a separate map, with labels or notations that make !t clear that the long term map depicts areas for which a new permit application or revision application(s) maybe submitted In the future, pursuant to Rule 2.05.2(2). CAM -Changed Figure 2.1-1 to reflect current mine plan. Removed panels not inGuded in current permit boundary and noted panels that are not approved under current permit boundary. 7) There seems to be some outdated, confusing, and/or contradictory information within sections of the text and map figures pertinent to proposed mining procedures and engineering techniques, coal production projections, and mine plan timetables and details. The following ctarircations are requested; a) The MINE PLAN AND SEQUENCE MAP Figure 2.1-1 needs to be updated to depict areas actuallymined during 2004 and 2005, and to adjust the future mining schedule accordingly, (b) Text on page 2-9 indicates that, because of the lenticular nature o/the Carbonera seam, no quality orreserve data was compiled for the Carbonera zone, and that any proposed mining of the unit would have to be preceded by an intensive exploration program...". However, Figure 2.1-1 depicts ramps to and from the LowerCarbonere Seam, and apparent mining ofthe seam within the graben. Page 2-20 states that `remaining reserves in the graben are not considered mineable" and indicates that the possibility of mining to the west o(the graben is tentative, and that plans for mining the area west of the graben will be detailed in future applications for review and approval by the DMG". In order to eliminate confus)on, please amend Figure 2.1-1 to remove panel layout and romps within and to the west of the graben from the map. The general area ofpotentlal future development in and to fhe west of the graben could be delineated by a simple polygon orshading, and the amended map should include a notation clearly stating that future m!n/ng within and to the west of the graben Is not approved, and no such mining will occur until necessary revision Is approved by DMG, (c) Map Figure 2.2-1 AFFECTED AND DISTURBED AREAS (revised 11/30/05) delineates existing disturbed areas, proposed disturbed areas, and existing affected areas. The map does not depict proposed affected areas. Rule 2.05.3(2)(b) requires mapping sufrcient to describe the area extent of the proposed underground workings and [he stratum to be affected. Also, the map scale is 1 ° = 1000; but is erroneously listed as 1" = 2000'. Please provide an amended Figure 2.2-1 that delineates proposed future area to be affected, to addition to the areas affected to date, with correct map scale, (d) Reference to Figure 2.2-1 in the last paragraph on page 2-17 appears to be erroneous; Figure 2.1-1 was presumably intended. Please amend the text as appropriate, (e) The production table on page 2-4 lists annual production for the years 2000 through 2003. Please update the table to Include production totals for2004 and 2005, (Q Section 2.5.4 of the application (pages 2-59 and 2- 60)appears to incude information in table and text that is outdated and conflicts with more current information in the mine plan sections the permit. Fw example, the table lists a total of over 15 million recovereble tons, whereas on page 2-18, a total of approximately 10 million recoverable tons is indicated. Also, the table does not include coal within the north half of Section 27, which is included within the permit area and is proposed to be mined toward the end of mining in the permit area. Finally, text on page 2-60 indicates that recovery of the upper Cameo seam maybe impractical. This conflicts with narrative in Section 2.1.6.1 on page 2-16, which states what, where areas of split seams occur, mining will be periwmed primarily in the upper seam. Mining in the lower seam is considered feasible in the northeast corner of the permit area where the upper seam thins to less than 5 feet. Mining in the lower split will require the necessary Hermit modifications° (emphasis ours). Please amend the table and text as necessary to ensure consistency and to reflect the most current and accurate lnformatfon. CAM a. Figure 2.1-1 was updated to show areas actually mined during 2004 8 2005, and updated future mining schedule accordingly. b. Adjusted Figure 2.1-1, removed ramps within graben area. Noted future development area subject to DMG permit approval. c. Amended Figure 2.2-1 to delineate proposed future area to be affected, in addition to the