Laserfiche WebLink
•"~ '` Mr. Robert H. Sherman Page 2 August 24, 1982 <br />1. Is the collection ditch at Pit No. 3 sized adequately to pass <br />safely the 10 year-24 hour peak Elows with the additional runoff <br />contributed from the Pit No. 2 area? <br />2. How would the vegetated swale affect the stability of the post- <br />mining landscape? The creation of a drainage (swale) on the reclaimed <br />area which does not connect to an undisturbed drainage could potentially <br />result in gully erosion on the steep slopes below the reclaimed <br />Pit No. 3 area. <br />3. Is the amount of disturbed area at Pit No. 2 and the potential <br />sediment generation sufficient to warrant routing of all runoff <br />through a sediment pond, even though significant changes in the <br />reclamation plan might result. A small area exemptionfrom the <br />sediment pond requirement might be applicable, since the Pit No. 2 <br />area has been stabilized to a large degree by vegetation. <br />A narrative addressing the backfilling,compacting, and revegetation of the <br />slump, as well as the plan for reclaiming the collection ditch and handling <br />runoff from the Pit No. 2 area should be submitted. Given the problems <br />noted with respect to diverting runoff through the Pit No. 3 sediment pond, <br />option No. 1 may be the preferred alternative. The extent of disturbance <br />remaining at the Pit No. 2 area (acres with perennial vegetation, acres <br />with annual vegetative cover, acres unvegetated, etc.) and any alternative <br />sediment control measures should be specified if a small area exanptdon is <br />requested. <br />I have assumed the lead review responsibility for Grassy Creek and will <br />be your contact at the Division. If you have any questions regarding this <br />letter or other issues, please let me know. <br />Sincerely, <br />Dan Mathews <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />DPI/ ep <br />