Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Boulay <br />-5- August 19, 2011 <br />27d. The column and /or row headings in tables 10 -4, 10 -5, 10 -6 and 10 -13 were cut -off. <br />Please correct the tables so the headings are legible. <br />CAM - No response. <br />Division Response: Please submit the corrected tables 10 -4, 10 -5 10 -6 and 10- <br />13 when CAM receives them. <br />CAM - Attached are tables 10 -4, 5, 6 and 13. <br />28 — 39. Items resolved. <br />Rule 2.04.11 Fish and Wildlife Resources Information <br />40 -41. Items resolved. <br />Rule 2.04.12 Prime Farmland Investigation <br />42. Item resolved. <br />Rule 2.05.2 Operation Plan — Operation Description <br />43. Item resolved. <br />Rule 2.05.3 Operation Plan — Permit Area <br />44 -45. Items resolved. <br />Rule 2.05.3(3) Mine Facilities <br />46. Item resolved. <br />47. Under Rule 2.05.3(3)(c) and referring to Map 16, "Loadout Facilities ", please <br />explain why CAM has elected to make the entire railroad loop drainage report to <br />sediment ponds. It appears to the Division that the portion of the railroad loop not <br />adjacent to the loadout facilities disturbance could be considered as a haul road <br />not in the disturbed area as defined in Rule 4.05.2(4) and, therefore, falls under <br />Rule 4.03.1(4)(iv), similar to the situation with the railroad spur. If changes are <br />made to the sediment control system, please revise the discussions concerning <br />the sediment control system found throughout the permit application. <br />In the April 11, 2011 submittal, CAM revised the sediment control system for the <br />railroad loop. However, with the addition of a construction material borrow area, <br />adjacent topsoil stockpile and the unsuitable subgrade storage area adjacent to <br />