Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Christine Johnston <br />Mountain Coal Company <br />Page 21 <br />April 14, 1997 <br />2.05.5 Postmining Land Use <br />2.05.5(2) Undereround Minine Activities <br />76. MCC's response was deemed acceptable. The Division has no further concerns. <br />77. Upon completion of the land exchange between MCC and the USFS, please provide <br />documentation to the Division that MCC is the current owner of the subject land. <br />2.05.6 Miti¢ation of the Impacts of Mining Oaerations <br />2.05.6 1 Air Pollution Control <br />78. Please ensure that a copy of the construction permit is provided to the Division once it <br />is received by MCC. The Division has no further concerns. <br />2.05.6 3 Protection of hydrolor~ic balance <br />79. The Division was concerned about the water rights for pond SG-l. MCC responded that <br />water rights aze not an issue at a sedimentation pond. The Division wishes to state that <br />water rights may be an issue at a sedimentation pond that can not be completely <br />dewatered. Since pond SG-1 can not dewater below the lowest weep hole in the primary <br />dischazge structure, a permanent pool capacity exists. The Division recommends that MCC <br />contact the local water commissioner for advice on water rights. <br />80. The Division was concerned about the sediment control that is planned by MCC during <br />construction activities. MCC responded that silt fences and straw bales will be utilized <br />during construction. The Division wishes to add that this is no longer a concern as long <br />as MCC actively pursues sediment control in a determined and effective manner. <br />81. The Division was concerned whether a surface water monitoring station above the <br />proposed shafr site disturbance has been planned. MCC responded that the South Sylvester <br />Gulch flume will be installed this year. On page 2.04-62 of the permit application, in <br />Table 5, this monitoring flume is listed. However, the footnote attached to the South <br />Sylvester Gulch flume states that this flume will be scheduled after at least one year of <br />baseline monitoring. Has this baseline monitoring been done and where are the data <br />located? <br />82. The Division responded to the anticipated 20 to 25 gpm mine water dischazge issue under <br />question number 24. <br />