REV96722 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Division has no further concerns. In the submittal dated February 11, 2004, Maps 3, 4, and 20 were revised accordingly. 21. There is incomplete data on Map 03, "Vegetation ", and Map 04, "Soils ", for a large area north of the proposed coal mine waste disposal site no. 2. Although not specifically required by the Regulations, this information is needed to calculate the surface runofffrom these areas for the Pond F design and for several ditch designs. Please provide revised maps that show the vegetation and soils information for the drainage area indicated, or explain how BRL arrived at the vegetation and soils information in calculating the surface water runoff. In BRL's reply, please include a response to the following specific question. In the calculation of the run-off volume for Pond F, found on page App-B-4 of the TR-30 submittal, there are seven types ofsub-drainage areas listed that contribute runoff to Pond F The Mixed Shrub sub- drainage area is listed as being 134.10 acres in size while that for the Dry Mixed shrub area is 203.3 acres and the Juniper Woodland area is 6.37 acres. However, examination of the drainage area H2 on Map 20, "Sedimentation Control Plan ",the vegetative types shown on Map 03, "Vegetation ", and the soil types shown on Map 04, "Soils ", shows that about half of the Pond F drainage area has no information depicted. In addition, for the vegetative types that are shown in the Pond F drainage area, the acreage for the Dry Mixed Shrub is several times larger than that for the Maed Shrub. Yet the run-off volume calculation on page App-B-4 uses a Dry Mixed Shrub acreage that is only 1.5 times the area of the Mixed Shrub area. Please justify the Mixed Shrub, Dry Mixed Shrub and Juniper Woodland sub-drainage acreage figures used on page App-B-4 for the run-off volume calculation for Pond F. The Division has no further concerns. In the submittal dated February 11, 2004, BRL revised Map 3 and Map 4 accordingly. Also, the additional information on these maps shows that the vegetation-type subdrainage acreages used in the hydrology design aze correct. 22. On Map 18, "Postmining Topography ", the D50 riprap size for postmining ditch P-P' is listed as being 12 inches. However, the D50 riprap size for ditch D-F7, the operational equivalent of ditch P-P', is listed on page App-B-8 as being 1 S inches. Please either revise the figure or explain the d~erence. The Division has no further concerns. Map 18 was revised accordingly in the submittal dated February 11, 2004. 23. On Map 18, "Postmining Topography ", the symbol for riprap is shown on the gob pile bench ditch cross section. However, the data on the same map states that no riprap will be used. (The same is true for the terrace ditch design on the same map from a previous revision). Please revise accordingly. The Division has no further concerns. Map 18 was revised accordingly in the submittal dated February 11, 2004. 24. What is the status of the NPDESpermit? Please provide a copy of the updated NPDESpermit, that includes the outfall for Pond F, when it has been issued. As BRL is aware of, no discharge from Pond F is allowed until the updated NPDESpermit has been granted.