Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Randy Price -2- November 7, 1994 <br />herbaceous with some shrubs, with 30~ to 70% cover, and the native areas can probably <br />be considered sagebrush with grass understory, also 30~ to 70k cover. <br />Therefore, the reclamation CN is possibly as high as 81, while the native CN is possibly <br />63. The operator should provide a detailed justification for the use of the 69 CN. <br />- The Pond A emergency spillway specifications provided with the most recent submittal <br />conflict with those provided on Plate 1, Exhibit 29. Please clarify. <br />Once these possible problems are addressed, the overall design for Pond A can be addressed. <br />2. Our calculations for the 10-year, 24-hour runoff volume to Pond B indicate an inflow volume <br />of about 4.5 or 5.0 acre-feet. This is less than was projected by the operator. Pond B is <br />probably oversized as indicated by the operator. <br />However, the pond capacity provided with the most current submittal conflicts with the pond <br />volume depicted on Plate 1, Exhibit 29. Please chuify. <br />3. Ditch B-1 appears to be adequately sized, assuming that the Ditch B-1 designs depicted on <br />Plate 1, Exhibit 29 remain valid. Please verify that this is the case. <br />4. The revised page 23-28R contains a reference to Ditch B-2. Please chuify. <br />5. The operator must submit designs, including the input hydrology, for ditches B-3, PD-1 and <br />PD-2. <br />6. The operator should submit a revised drainage control plan map which depicts rechtimed <br />topography, with the various ditches, ponds, drainage areas, etc., portrayed. <br />7. The operator must provide detailed hydrology input and geofabric product specifications and <br />designs if geofabrics are to be proposed for Ditch PD-1 and/or PD-2. Rock riptap is a <br />preferred method, but geofabric installation can be considered if the appropriate designs are <br />submitted for review. <br />Also, the application references a separate MR for this item. Is there an MR? This should <br />probably all be handled as part of the current TR. <br />8. I notice that solid waste disposal is proposed for the loadout. This should not be allowed, <br />given the site proximity to surface and groundwater resources. All coal waste should be <br />disposed at the mine site. Non-coal waste can go to a proper landfill. This should be <br />clarified as part of the TR decision. <br />DAB/bjw <br />M:\OSS\H1W\DAB.MAR <br />