Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4 of 5 <br />15) Please add the locations of the pond cross - sections to the sediment ponds shown on <br />Figure 13 (Map 13 ?). <br />47A. On revised Map 13 of the submittal dated April 11, 2011, please label pond 1 and pond 2 <br />on the plan view. <br />In the submittal dated July 8, 2011, all of the ponds were properly labeled. However, the <br />revised plan now involves three sediment ponds and a revised Map 13 will need to be <br />submitted. <br />48. On permit text page 2.05 -11 in Section 2.05.3(3)(c), it is stated that haul road no. 1 is not <br />within the disturbed area. This is in compliance with Rules 4.05.2(4) and 4.03.1(4)(a)(iv). <br />As such, only best management practices are required for sediment control for haul road <br />no. 1. However, there are four Sedcad hydrology designs for the silt fence along haul <br />road no. 1 that are presented in Exhibit 9 of Volume II. These four designs are not <br />needed and they can be omitted if CAM wishes. <br />In the April 11, 2011 submittal, CAM elected to remove the four silt fence designs for <br />haul road no. 1 from Exhibit 9, leaving a berm with silt fence in places. In the July 8, <br />2011 submittal, CAM also removed the silt fence designation and replaced it with an <br />excelsior log designation. However, please remove the silt fence notation and arrows that <br />appear on Map 16 for that section of haul road no. 1 and revise the permit text on permit <br />page 2.05 -22 to describe the new sediment control situation. <br />49A. As required under Rule 4.03.1(4)(e), please provide designs which show that the bridge <br />can safely pass the runoff from a 100 year -24 hour precipitation event. <br />CAM provided a new Exhibit 18 which shows that the water in Reed Wash can safely <br />pass underneath the proposed bridge. However, the Division requests that CAM provide a <br />more detailed description of the results in the report, especially what the different profiles <br />on the cross sections represent. In addition, please provide the name of the preparer on <br />page 2 of the report and change from seven channel piers to five channel piers in the third <br />line from the top of the same page. Finally, please reference the Exhibit 18 report on <br />permit text page 2.05 -9. <br />50. Since there are several locations where the railroad spur and loop are close to Reed <br />Wash, the Division suggests that a barrier, such as a berm, be constructed between the <br />railroad tracks and Reed Wash in case of a coal spill from the railcars. <br />As explained in the April 11, 2011 revised permit text sections 2.05.3(4), 2.05.6(2) and <br />2.05.6(3), Exhibit 9 and Map 16, berms and silt fence will be used to contain any coal <br />spills that might occur near Reed Wash. The Division had requested an additional berm <br />on the outside of ditch D2 -b but CAM pointed out in the July 8, 2011 submittal that this <br />is a cut area so no berm would be needed. The Division requests that the discussion of the <br />silt fences on permit text page 2.05 -46 be updated to discuss all of the silt fences on site. <br />