REV106751 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Michael G. Altavilla Seneca Coal Company Page 6 November 24, 1998 but unlike Exhibit 22-1, it does not indicate general locations in which concentrated seeding of shrubs, using Seedmix No. 6, would be employed. It is recommended that Exhibit 22-1A, as well as narrative on page 22 of the revegetation plan be updated to address concentrated shrub seeding in the South Mine Area. 19. Exhibit 22-1A depicts several "upland planting azeas", but does not distinguish between "Planting List 1 (mesic)", and "Planting List 2 (drier)", planting sites. This additional information should be provided on the map, similar to that provided on Exhibit 22-1, to correspond to narrative on amended page 23. 20. The seedmix/planting list acreages listed on amended page 27 do not appear to correspond with Map 22-1 A. For example, the acreage of aspen planting areas on page 27 was increased from 8.5 acres to 11.2 acres (an increase of approximately 3 acres), whereas Exhibit 22-1A depicts 7 different aspen planting azeas totaling approximately 20 acres. The acreage listed for Seedmix 6 (concentrated shrub seeding) was not increased, but it would be assumed that concentrated shrub seedings would be conducted in the 11-W South area. Seedmix/planting lists for the sediment ponds 015, 016, and 017 aze not specified, and should be indicated on the map, and reflected in the list on page 27. A "mesic drainage planting azea" is depicted along a segment of the reclaimed drainage above Pond 016, but it does not appear that seeding with the "mesic drainage Seedmix (Mix No..2)" is proposed, as would appear to be warranted. 21. Approximately 1.5 acres of mesic drainage reclamation is proposed along the reclaimed drainage above Pond 016, and additional mesic drainage reclamation may lie warranted in the immediate vicinity of Pond 016 and 017, yet no specific success comparison methodology is proposed for this type in the II-W South area. A direct comparison approach for the mesic drainage type in the South area, similar to that previously approved for the mesic drainage type along Dry Creek, would seem to be warranted. 2.05.6(3) Protection of Hydrological Balance 22. To aid in our review of the permit revision application, it would be helpful to have a summary of the monitoring sites utilized for baseline data collection. Please provide a list of the surface water, groundwater, and spring monitoring locations, sample date(s), and analyses performed for each location that is intended to be representative of baseline hydrologic data for the II-W South area. 23. Baseline groundwater quantity and quality data are required for each aquifer above, within and, if potentially impacted, below the lowest coal seam to be mined (Rule 2.04.7). Fsom revised Exhibit 7-1, it appears that there are four groundwater monitoring