GENERAL39786 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dr. W.D. Corley 2 July 22, 1992 vegetation productivity study is required for reclaimed areas above ponds being considered for removal as a demonstration of the lack of soil erosion. We responded at the meeting that such a study is not a requirement. Rule 4.05.2(2) discusses what surface runoff criteria must be met before ponds may be removed, but does not state that herbaceous productivity is a sole criterium for revegetation success. Vegetative cover is typically the revegetation success criteria used in evaluating stabilization. Rule 4.15.8 discusses revegetation success criteria including herbaceous production, but does not address pond removal. The next concern dealt with the necessity of the Corley Company having to renew its CPDES permit for the Newlin Creek Mine sediment pond. This was the same pond that the vegetation cover study was performed for, and the pond which you wanted to have approved for removal and have removed prior to the CPDES permit renewal date of June 30, 1992. We responded that as all ::P the demonstrations for pond removal as outlined in Rule 4.05.2(2) had not as yet been made, we could not approve the pond for removal at this time. The Corley Company's final concern was with Harrison-Western Corporation's reclamation activities at the GEC Strip Mine. Specifically, you contended that a portion of a new culvert installed by Harrison-Western on your property, and within the GEC Strip Mine permit area, extended into the adjacent Energy Fuels Coal Inc. Southfield Mine permit area. You informed us that while the area where this portion of the culvert existed in the Southfield permit area was also your property, you believed the placement of the culvert within the Southfield permit area to be a "trespass", and that the Division should order Harrison- Western to remove the culvert. Our response to this concern was three-fold. First we stated that we believe the current location of the culvert provides the best balance of both minimization of surface disturbance and conformance with sediment control regulations. Removal of the culvert would leave two alternatives for handling the runoff from the adjacent undisturbed drainage: construction of a much larger conveyance system that would parallel the Southfield permit boundary prior to discharging into the Magpie Creek Diversion, or construction of a pond embankment large enough to treat the runoff from the West Pit disturbance and the large associated undisturbed watershed. Either option we believe would create a significantly larger disturbance for no appreciable increase in hydrologic continuity. Our second response to this alleged trespass was that we have