Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Jim E. Stover <br />June 14, 1999 <br />Page 2 of 3 Pages <br />4.02.1(2) and (3)]. Thus markers are required about all areas that were disturbed, including the fan <br />shaft road. Any one marker should be visible from an adjacent marker. (The Division will accept <br />markers, visible from one to adjacent, on alternating sides of the fan shaft road between areas of <br />disturbance.) A minor revision to the permit to describe the markers would be helpful. <br />As we discussed during our telephone conversation, there appears to be potential for release of <br />reclamation liability for a number of features, along with incidental boundary changes to the <br />permit [Technical Revisions, see Rule 1.04(136)]. I have completed a cursory review of <br />reclamation status, and look forward to working with you in tailoring this permit down to <br />recognize current conditions. <br />Rule 4.0.2(1) requires disturbed area drainage to report to a sediment pond before leaving the <br />permit area. As the runoff from the Portal 1 area does not report to a pond, it would appear to <br />need an exemption under Rule 4.0.2(3). In my review of the Permit Application Package, I <br />found no description of a small area exemption. I did, however, find numerous references to such <br />an exemption in findings documentation. Please assist me in locating such a description in the <br />Permit, or submit a technical revision to the Petmit demonstrating that the runoff from the Portal ] <br />area does not need to go through a pond. <br />With regard to the use of Sediment Pond P-9 for other uses (polishing pond below Treatment Pond <br />T-2), it appeazs that this pond may need to yet serve as a sediment pond in the event that remedial <br />revegetation efforts disturb upland areas. The vegetative cover above the sediment pond was <br />adequate to support a conclusion that the pond was not required for sediment control. However, <br />the vegetation analyses did not support a Phase II Bond release, nor was there a finding of <br />potential for eventual evolution of the area to reach release criteria. Should extensive remedial <br />topsoiling, seeding, fertilizing, etc. become necessary for the site to achieve the necessary <br />revegetation performance standard, it is possible that the Division will require a second <br />sedimentology analysis to demonstrate that the additional activity did not significantly change the <br />modeling assumptions set forth in the initial sedimentology demonstrations. Other rules apply [o <br />combined mine drainage and surface drainage. <br />I certainly value your thoughts and historical perspective presented during our telephone <br />conversation. Please call me if you have any questions or ideas. <br />Yours truly, <br />~ x /~ ~ <br />Byrofi Ci. Walker, P.E. <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />File: <br />C:\wpdocsUtr.02 ~.doc <br />Public <br />Working <br />