2008-09-17_REVISION - M1980244 (28)

Home Browse Search

worst case scenario, please indicate as such and revise your maps as necessary. CC&V is • well aware that at any time if things or circumstances change, CC&V can submit a revision to the permit to adjust and modify the approved permit at a later date if conditions warrant. Response. Included as Attachment 6 is a revised "Post Mining Topography for MLE Reclamation Facilities" drawing that includes the Elevation Numbers of the topographic lines, as wells as, removal of the written disclaimer from the lower right corner of the drawing. A revised drawing C-4 is included as Attachment 4, and has been revised with removal of the written disclaimer from the lower right corner of the legend. B. It would assist the Division if all the reclamation plan maps will be similarly submitted as the Phase 5 VLF (map 220) Grading Plan. Even though the cross-sections in Drawing C-6 are based on a map with a scale of 1"to 2000', a map with a smaller scale, like Map C-4,1 inch to 800 feet is preferred. Response. Any revision made to the drawings as submitted in the MLE Project Application are included in this submittal, otherwise drawings remain as submitted in the MLE Project Application to the scales as identified on the drawings. • C. What is the plan for overburden placement in the year 2016? This information is not shown on Drawing C-5. Response. Based on the in-house ore block modeling completed as part of the MLE Project, it is not anticipated that there will be a great volume of overburden encountered as the final phases of the mining operation are completed in the year 2016. However, should the ore block modeling change during active mining activities during 2016, and overburden is encountered, then small amount of overburden would be placed in the same facilities identified in the year 2015, which are as backfill within the Schist Island portion of the North Cresson mining area, WHEX portion of the East Cresson mining area, and/or Main Cresson mining area. D. Page 11-9 states that some slope areas may be plated with coarse rock for runoff protection versus revegetation. What are the criteria for determining when a slope is more amenable for one type of amendment versus the other? Response: There is no standard criterion for armoring slopes for runoff protection versus revegetation. Areas are evaluated based on site specific characteristics and may include steepness, potential • runoff coefficient, topography, and revegetation potential among others. CC&V engineering staff may review surface hydrology characteristics in areas considered for potential slope armoring versus revegetation. 15