Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~I9. The Division has no further concerns. BRL noted the Division's <br />~ comment that the fugitive dust permit may impose restrictions <br />on speed limits. <br />82. The Division requested that BRL discuss the impact of ground <br />/ water drawdown on the quantity of water in springs and seeps. <br />BRL supplied revised pages 2.05-68, 68i and 69 and noted that <br />this discussion was already in the permit. However, these <br />discussions involve drawdown of ground water due to <br />subsidence. The Division believes that a discussion of the <br />impact on springs and seeps due to drawdown of the ground <br />water from mine water pumpage is also needed. This discussion <br />should also be included in the Probable Hydrologic <br />Consequences Section of the permit application. Please <br />comment. <br />This question, concerning the effects of subsidence on <br />sedimentation pond integrity, was basically covered in the <br />Division's statement under Section 2.2, Surface Water, found <br />on pages 34 and 35 of the Division's May 31, 1996 adequacy <br />letter. The successful resolution of question #83 will be <br />deferred to the successful resolution of the Section 2.2 <br />statement. <br />84. The Division has no further concerns. The Division requested <br />that a discussion be added to the Probable Hydrologic <br />Consequences Section of the permit application that would <br />address the impact to the quality of ground water and surface <br />water. The operator supplied revised pages 2.05-70 and 71. <br />85. The Division has no further concerns. The operator declined <br />/ the Division's request for full suite analyses of pond <br />discharges. The NPDES permit hydrology sampling requirements <br />will probably be adequate since this is an underground mine. <br />However, should there be any mine water discharge, the NPDES <br />`~ permit requirements might need to be changed. BRL discusses <br />treatment of mine water discharge on page 2.05-69. <br />86. The Division questioned why there were no surface water' <br />1 monitoring sites on Terror Creek or Hubbard Creek. BRL <br />~ referred to the April 11, 1995 letter which summarized the <br />April 7, 1995 meeting between BRL and the Division, in which <br />BRL contends that both creeks were excluded from the <br />hydrologic monitoring program. BRL also stated that Terror <br />Creek and Hubbard Creek were outside the angle of draw and, <br />therefore, would not be affected by mining. Finally, BRL <br />stated that no runoff from any proposed disturbed area would <br />drain into either creek. <br />C:\WP51\BOWIEf 2\ADEQIAEV <br />IA: \COAL\JJD\ADEQIREV <br />7 <br />