Laserfiche WebLink
the location for one of the seismograph(s) be at the closest structure (to include the <br />underground workings of the Molly Kathleen). <br />g) Are there any other under ground workings other than those shown in the under <br />ground workings map labeled A-120? The underground workings remediation <br />typical details map A-270 only shows remediation for shallow shaft, open mines <br />slot and open lateral. What about remediation plans for the Columbine and <br />Squaw tunnels that will be underneath the southern extension of VLF Phase 5? <br />Please explain. <br />V) Exhibit E - Reclamation Plan - Rule 6.4.5 <br />A. The unlabeled topography map titled "Post Mining Topography for MLE Reclamation <br />Facilities", corresponding to reclamation cost estimates does not have contour intervals <br />corresponding to the contour lines and is also missing elevation numbers. The scale is the <br />only thing labeled at 1 inch to 800 feet. Since the map was utilized to calculate the required <br />warranty, including estimates of total material placement in the different overburden <br />storage areas, backfill and grading, and haul distance costs, DRMS requests that the <br />operator provide another map with the appropriate labels, such as the actual post mining <br />topography with elevations and the 35 foot contour intervals utilized. The map also had a <br />written disclaimer. saying, "This map represents the approximate boundaries of facilities <br />used for the reclamation cost estimates". Drawing C-4, Proposed Facilities Overburden and <br />Mines Cresson-Mine Life Extension, also has a similar disclaimer. Please remove all <br />disclaimers from all the maps and narrative. As stated earlier, DRMS requires the worst <br />case scenario for any operation, in order to calculate the required warranty to return the <br />affected land to the approved post mining land use. If the current proposed plan is not the <br />worst case scenario, please indicate as such and revise your maps as necessary. CC&V is <br />well aware that at any time if things or circumstances change, CC&V can submit a revision <br />to the permit to adjust and modify the approved permit at a later date if conditions warrant. <br />B. It would assist the Division if all the reclamation plan maps will be similarly submitted as <br />the Phase 5 VLF (map 220) Grading Plan. Even though the cross-sections in Drawing C-6 <br />are based on a map with a scale of 1"to 2000', a map with a smaller scale, like Map C-4,1 <br />inch to 800 feet is preferred. <br />C. What is the plan for overburden placement in the year 2016? This information is not shown <br />on Drawing C-5. <br />D. Page 11-9 states that some slope areas may be plated with coarse rock for runoff protection <br />versus revegetation. What are the criteria for determining when a slope is more amenable <br />for one type of amendment versus the other? <br />E. Based on the soils information provided to the Division as part of Exhibit I, there appears to <br />be 10-12 inches of topsoil available which could be salvaged as growth medium. Please <br />commit to salvaging and replacing all available growth medium with 10 inches to be <br />replaced at a minimum. All topsoil that is salvaged must be protected if it is not going to be <br />utilized for more than 180 days. <br />F. The operator provided two seed mixtures for the site. The list on Table 11-1 is the primary <br />seed mix that is planned to be used. The seed mix on table 11-2 is planned to be used as a <br />6