Laserfiche WebLink
TWENTYMILE COAL, LLC - FOIDEL CREEK MINE (C-82-056) <br />TR10-73, 19-RIGHT MINE DEWATERING INSTALLATION <br />TECHNICAL ADEQUACY RESPONSES II (06/10) <br />Appendix A, revised page TR10-73, does not include the reclamation costs for the entire proposed <br />disturbance. Revised page 2.05-50.9 proposes to backfill and grade the trench incrementally as <br />the pipeline is installed. Reclamation costs must be included for the entire length of the <br />disturbance. <br />Please include costs for baclflling and grading and topsoil replacement for the entire 7.5 acres of <br />disturbance. <br />Although this response is adequate, the Division has found inconsistencies with the reclamation <br />cost estimate in TCC's response and the proposed revised text associated with TR73. The <br />inconsistencies are as follows: <br />• The reclamation cost estimate describes the pipeline corridor as having 65 acres of <br />disturbance. This acreage is in contrast to the area of disturbance of 7.2 acres (6,200'x <br />50 ) listed on pages 2.05-45.13 and 2.05-50.8. <br />• Page 2.05-45.13 proposes a 10" HDPE pipeline buried `6 deep, whereas page 2.05-50.8 <br />proposes the HDPE pipeline to be 12.5 " and buried 5 ' deep <br />Please address these discrepancies and provide any revised pages that will be required with the <br />corrections <br />Response: The reclamation cost estimate has been reviewed and revised to reflect reclamation costs <br />for the entire disturbance area, even though most of the pipeline reclamation will occur concurrently <br />with construction. The revised reclamation cost estimate accompanies these responses. <br />The correct figure is 7.2 acres of disturbance, as noted in the text discussion. The reclamation cost <br />estimate has been corrected to reflect this acreage, and is attached. The text discrepancy on pipeline <br />size and depth has been corrected to reflect a maximum pipe size of 12.5 inches and an approximate <br />pipeline depth of 5 feet. Revised text pages accompany these responses. <br />2. Current approved permit page 2.04.9 does not include discussion concerning the presence of <br />cultural and historic resources, and no revised page 2.04-9 was included with the TR-73 submittal. <br />Please indicate if the area of disturbance does not affect cultural and historic resources, or if a <br />cultural and historic resources survey has been conducted of the proposed disturbance area. <br />Response: TC had deferred a cultural resources survey for this area until ground conditions were <br />suitable for access. The required cultural resource survey was conducted during the week of June 21 st, <br />and we anticipate that we should be able to provide survey results and a revised page 2.04.9 the week <br />of July 5th. <br />3. Current approved Map 29, Reclamation Map, does not include the disturbance proposed in TR-73. <br />Please provide a revised Map 29 to reflect the proposed reclamation associated with the activities <br />proposed in TR-73.