5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
BUREAU OF MINING PROGRAMS
Applicant:
SMAP #:
Township:
County:
ANTHRACITE PREPARATION PLANT PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW GUIDE
Receiving Streams(s):
Chapter 93 Water Quality Classification(s):
Existing Uses:
Public Water Supplies:
Agency
Date
Notified
Response
Received
SMCI Field Review
Engineer
Hydrogeologist (if applicable)
Monitoring & Compliance Specialist
Bureau Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Bureau Mine Safety
Bureau Watershed Management
Bureau Oil & Gas Planning and Program
Management
Bureau of Safe Drinking Water
Bureau Topo & Geo Survey
Bureau of Point and Non-Point Source
Management
Bureau of Air Quality
Bureau of Waste Management
Scenic Rivers Program (DCNR)
County Conservation District
Fish and Boat Commission
Game Commission
Historical & Museum Commission
Local Municipality
PennDOT
SRBC
U.S. Corps of Engineers (if applicable)
Water Companies (list all) / PADWIS#
Others (List)
-1-
Comments/Recommendations
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
Pre-Application
Was a pre-application submitted?
Yes
No
If yes, were the deficiences from the pre-application addressed?
Yes
No
If no, list the outstanding deficiencies:
Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI)
Did any of the following agencies report potential impacts associated with the PNDI search?
IMPACTS

Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Informal conference requested?
Yes
No
Public hearing requested?
Yes
No
DCNR
Result/Comment:

Game Commission
Result/Comment:

Fish and Boat Commission
Result/Comment:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Result/Comment:
Public Comments
Were any written comments or objections received?
If yes, was a:
If a Public Hearing was held:

What was the date of the Public Hearing?
Yes
No

Was a Public Hearing report completed?
Yes
No

Were the objectors notified (e.g. letter, report)?
Yes
No
Sample Information System (SIS)
SIS Report created?
Yes
Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment (CHIA)
Was the CHIA completed?
Yes
Surface Mining Conservation Inspector (SMCI)
SMCI field review conducted?
Yes
Inspector comments?
Yes
Were the Inspectors comments addressed?
Yes
-2-
No
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
Lead Reviewer Recommendation:
Hydrogeologist or Mining Engineer
Approval
Disapproval
Date:
Approval
Disapproval
Date:
Approval
Disapproval
Date:
Signature:
Technical Supervisor Recommendation:
Signature:
District Mining Manager
Recommendation:
Signature:
-3-
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
MODULE 1: GENERAL INFORMATION
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Does the operator have a valid license to mine in Pennsylvania?
Yes
No
Was the application paperwork submitted with the original seal?
Yes
No
Were all of the required signatures submitted?
Yes
No
Was the affidavit included?
Yes
No
Proposed Activities?
Yes
No
Proposed variances?
Yes
No
Was a copy of the public notice placed in a public office in the county where the Yes
proposed mining will occurr?
No
Was the public notice placed in a valid newspaper?
Yes
No
Was the permit acreage accurately provided?
Yes
No
Was the latitude/longitude provided?
Yes
No
Was an original Proof of Publication provided?
Yes
No
If pending, the license number must be listed upon approval.
MSHA ID#:
Verification of Application (§ 86.18):
Public Notice (§§ 86.31, 86.70):
Comments:
MODULE 2: NPDES INFORMATION
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Note: A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is needed for all mining permits
Is a discharge proposed?
Yes
No
Is a Total Maximum Daily Limit (TMDL) required?
Yes
No
Yes
No
If yes, list here:
High Quality Watershed
Is a discharge proposed?
If yes, list Individual NPDES permit numbers here:
-4-
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
Individual NPDES / General Permit 104 (GP 104) Information:
Is the acreage consistant with the Surface Mine Permit (SMP)?
Yes
No
Was the Stream Class identified?
Yes
No
Was the PPC included?
Yes
No
Was the NPDES signed, sealed, notarized?
Yes
No
Did the Engineer approve the NPDES and/or GP 104?
Yes
No
Was a Public Notice provided?
Yes
No
Were any discharge(s) identified?
Yes
No
Were the discharges keyed to Map 6.2 and/or 9.0?
Yes
No
Was the Proof of Publication provided?
Yes
No
Was the initial notification published in Pennsylvania a Bulletin?
Yes
No
Was the notification published as a draft in the Pennsylvania a Bulletin?
Yes
No
Was the notification published as final in the Pennsylvania a Bulletin?
Yes
No
Was the notification sent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, if applicable?
Yes
No
Comments:
MODULE 3: OWNERSHIP / COMPLIANCE INFORMATION (§§ 86.62, 86.63)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Is the applicant licensed?
Yes
No
Will there be a contract operator?
Yes
No
Was Module 3 provided and complete?
Yes
No
Compliance report comments?
Yes
No
Comments:
MODULE 4: AREAS WHERE MINING IS PROHIBITED OR LIMITED (§§ 86.102-86.103, 88.22, 88.56)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Are there any restricted areas?
Approval Date:
Denied:
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
If yes, list:




House(s)
Stream(s)
Road(s)
Utilities
-5-
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
Was the Public Notice provided?
Yes
No
Was the original proof of publication provided?
Yes
No
Was the Cutural Resource notice provided?
Yes
No
Were the original certified mail receipts included?
Yes
No
Act 67/68 -General Information Form (GIF)
Comments:
MODULE 5: PROPERTY INTERESTS/RIGHT OF ENTRY(§§ 86.37(a)(7), 86.62(a)(2), 86.64)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Was the original Consent of Landowner Form provided?
Yes
No
Was the landowner consent notarized and recorded?
Yes
No
Was a signed map attached to the consent?
Yes
No
Were the right of entry documents provided?
Yes
No
Yes
No
If yes, list (e.g. lease, deed):
Are the right of entry documents valid?
(Note the right of entry at the minium, needs the following information - names of the parties involved in the lease,
mining activity to be conducted on the permit, term of the lease, map or legal description of the lease area, acrage
amount of lease and signature page.)
Comments:
MODULE 6: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MAPS (§§ 86.15, 88.31)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Was an accurate topographic map provided?
Yes
No
Was the Environmental Resource Map provided?
Yes
No
Was the Environmental Resource Map complete?
Yes
No
Was the Environmental Resource Map sealed?
Yes
No
Comments:
-6-
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
MODULE 7: GEOLOGY INFORMATION (§§88.24, 88.25, 88.31)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Overburden Analysis
Was a Waiver of Overburden Analysis requested?
Yes
No
If yes, was a narrative explanation and documentation supporting the basis for the
waiver provided?
Yes
No
Was the Waiver of Overburden Analysis request approved or denied?
Denied
Approved
Provide a brief description of why the Waiver of Overburden Analysis was approved:
Stratigraphy (if applicable)
Was the required stratigraphy information included?
Yes
No
Comments:
MODULE 8: HYDROLOGY (§§ 88.25, 88.26)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Were six (6) months of background samples results provided?
Yes
No
Was a permanent monitoring plan submitted?
Yes
No
Was any mine pool information provided?
Yes
No
Was this information keyed to Map 6.2 and/or 9.0?
Yes
No
Were all references cited?
Yes
No
Were there any potential impacts reported (e.g. stream, public water, private water)?
Yes
No
If yes, list:
Comments:
-7-
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
MODULE 9: OPERATIONS MAP (§ 88.44)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Was the Operations Map accurate?
Yes
No
Was the Operations Map sealed?
Yes
No
Comments:
MODULE 10: OPERATIONAL INFORMATION (§§88.41, 88.42)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Was there an adequate plan for proposed mining?
Yes
No
Were there any existing structures?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Was a bond provided?
Yes
No
Was the bond total adquate?
Yes
No
Was a land owner letter provided allowing the buildings to remain?
Yes
No
Yes
No
was a bond provided?
Yes
No
Are the roads common use?
Yes
No
If yes, provide verification of common use.
Yes
No
Will any roads remain post mining?
Yes
No
If yes, was a landowner letter provided allowing the roads to remain post mining?
Yes
No
If no, was a bond submitted?
Yes
No
If yes, list:
Buildings
Will any buildings remain post mining?
If yes, list:
Roads
List acre of roads:
acres
Are road improvements proposed?
If yes,
-8-
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
Is a Highway Occupancy Permit needed?
Yes
No
If yes, was a copy provided?
Yes
No
Were all existing structures keyed to Map 6.2 and/or 9?
Yes
No
Comments:
MODULE 11: COAL REFUSE DISPOSAL (§ 88.59)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Is there any coal refuse disposal sites proposed?
Yes
No
If yes, list sources:
Comments:
MODULE 12: EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS (§§ 88.50, 88.51, 88.52, 88.53 &, Chapter 102)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Diversion Controls
Was a plan for the collection and conveyance to a natural drainage way of the runoff
from upslope undisturbed areas provided?
Yes
Was a separate general design for a temporary highwall diversion which limits the
amount of runoff which can enter the pit (where applicable) plan?
Yes
Was the following information included on Module 12.1 Diversion/Collection Ditches:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Design criteria
Capacity calculations
Profile of proposed channel slopes
Typical cross sections
Required erosion resistant channel linings
Additional applicable details
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Was a complete plan for the control of erosion and sedimentation for lands within the
permit area to be disturbed by surface mining activities?
Yes
No
Were all facilities shown to scale on Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 18?
No
Erosion and Sediment Control
Haul Roads/Access Roads
Was the required information for each road to be constructed, reconstructed or used in
the operation submitted?
-9-
Yes
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
Will a PennDOT highway occupancy permit be needed?
Yes
No
If yes, was the permit number provided prior to permit activation?
Yes
No
Was a Notification form for activities proposed to be conducted under General Permit
for Temporary Road Crossings (BMR-GP-101) and General Permit for Access Road
Crossings (BMR-GP-102) must include a completed Notification Form provided?
Yes
No
Comments:
MODULE 13: IMPOUNDMENTS / TREATMENT
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Treatment (§ 88.49(b)(1))
Was a construction and maintenance narrative submitted?
Yes
No
Was a detailed plan view and cross-section drawings submitted?
Yes
No
Was the Design criteria and engineering calculations included?
Yes
No
Were the pond certification data sheets included?
Yes
No
Detailed design and construction plans?
Yes
No
Construction narrative?
Yes
No
Detailed plan view and cross-section drawings
Yes
No
Design criteria and engineering calculations
Yes
No
Pond certification data sheets
Yes
No
Are there any pond(s) with >100 acres of drainage area?
Yes
No
Are there any pond(s) with maximum storage elevation >15 feet?
Yes
No
Are there any pond(s) with a maximum storage volume >50 acre-feet?
Yes
No
If yes, was the fee of $1,500 submitted?
Yes
No
Was the Operation and Maintenance narrative submitted?
Yes
No
Was a dewatering timetable submitted?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Sedimentation Ponds, Dams and Impoundments (§ 88.53)
Class C Dams (Chap. 105)
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
Removal
Was the pond reclamation narrative included?
Comments:
- 10 -
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
MODULE 14: STREAMS / WETLANDS
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Mining Activities within 100 Feet of a Stream (§§ 86.102(12), 88.138(b))
Was the proof of publication submitted?
Yes
No
Will mining activities occur within the floodway or 50 feet from the top of the stream
bank?
Yes
No
If yes,
Was the drainage area(s) at that point >100 acres submitted ($200 fee)?
Yes
No
Does the activity qualifies as a small project (as defined in § 105.1) ($100 fee)?
Yes
No
Is the activity authorized under a BMP-GP-101 or BMP-GP-102 (no fee)?
Yes
No
Was the proof of publication submitted?
Yes
No
Is the drainage area >100 acres?
Yes
No
If yes, was a $300 is submitted?
Yes
No
Do wetlands exist?
Yes
No
Will they be affected?
Yes
No
Were any Exceptional Value Wetlands identified?
Yes
No
Is a Wetland Impact Analysis/Assessment provided?
Yes
No
Is an alternative analysis completed and included?
Yes
No
Will the proposed mining activities directly affect the wetlands?
Yes
No
Will any wetlands within the proposed permit or adjacent area be indirectly
affected?
Yes
No
Stream Relocation and Channel Changes (Chap. 105.18a)
Wetland Related Information
Wetland Impact Analysis/Assessment
Wetland Mitigation/Replacement
Is wetland mitigation or wetland replacement proposed?
Yes
No
Are the location(s) of replacement wetland sites shown on the Operations Map
(Exhibit 9) and the Land Use and Reclamation Map (Exhibit 18)?
Yes
No
What is the wetland replacement ratio?
Yes
No
Has the applicant completed and attached the “PASPGP-4 Cumulative Impacts
Project Screening Form (3150-PM-BWEW0050)” and supporting documents listed
below to this module?
Yes
No
Has the applicant submitted an “Individual Permit” to the Corps?
No
United States Army Corp of Engineers Permits
Comments:
- 11 -
Yes
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
MODULE 17: AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN (§§ 88.48, 88.114)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Will an Air Quality Permit be required?
Yes
No
Was a General Permit 12 submitted?
Yes
No
Comments:
MODULE 18: LAND USE AND RECLAMATION MAP (§ 88.44)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Was an accurate land use map provided?
Yes
No
Was Map 18 signed and sealed?
Yes
No
Comments:
MODULE 19: LAND USE / VEGETATION / FISH AND WILDLIFE / PRIME FARMLAND
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Existing land use? (§ 88.30)
Yes
No
Are prime farmland soils present? (§ 88.32)?
Yes
No
If yes, was a letter from the landowner provided requesting alternative to Approximate
Original Contour (AOC)?
Yes
No
Are there any spoil storage area proposed? (§ 88.58)
No
Yes
Comments:
- 12 -
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
MODULE 20: POST-MINING LAND USE (§§ 88.55, 88.133)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Was a post-mining land use plan provided?
Yes
No
Is post-mining land use consistent with the regulations?
Yes
No
Comments:
MODULE 21: SOILS (§§ 88.88, 88.89)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Was Module 21 completed?
Yes
No
Comments:
MODULE 22: PRIME FARMLAND RECONSTRUCTION (§ 88.61)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Was Module 22 completed?
Yes
No
Was Module 22 approved, signed, and dated?
Yes
No
Comments:
MODULE 23: REVEGETATION (§§ 88.46, 88.121 – 88.130.30)
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Is the revegetation plan consistent with post mining land use?
Comments:
- 13 -
Approval Date:
Denied:
Yes
No
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
MODULE 24: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATEMENT FOR HIGH QUALITY WATERS
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Was Form 5600-PM-BMP0028 "Social or Economic Justification (SEJ) and Water Use
Demonstration (for projects in high quality [HQ] waters only)" completed?
Yes
No
Comments:
MODULE 26: REMINING OF AREAS WITH PREEXISTING POLLUTIONAL DISCHARGES
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Approval Date:
Denied:
Was a Subchapter G submitted?
Yes
No
Abandoned mine drainage information
Yes
No
Remining Map (§ 88.504(a)(1))
Yes
No
Preexisting pollutional discharges (§ 88.504(a)(2))
Yes
No
Abatement Plan (§ 88.504 (a)(3))
Yes
No
Revegetation Plan: (§ 88.505(a)(5))
Yes
No
If yes, was the following information submitted?
Comments:
MODULE 27: BENEFICIAL USE AS A SOIL ADDITIVE / SUBSTITUTE
Reviewer:
Review Date:
Approved:
Were soil additive(s) proposed
Approval Date:
Denied:
Yes
No
Was the coal ash certification as soil substitute or soil additive included?
Yes
No
If proposal for sewage sludge, was the public notification provided?
Yes
No
If yes,
was the proposed additive for:
Sewage sludge
Composted sewage sludge
Coal ash
- 14 -
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
Was the P.O.P provided?
Yes
No
Was the soil information attached?
Yes
No
Was the chemical analyses for the sewage sludge provided?
Yes
No
Was the groundwater information provided?
Yes
No
Was an erosion and sediment control plan submitted?
Yes
No
Was an Operational Narrative provided?
Yes
No
Was the proposed application rate justified?
Yes
No
Was a monitoring plan for the soil; sewage sludge, composted sludge, or coal ash; and
the surface and groundwater to be performed provided?
Yes
No
Maps and Related Information
Was the location of the sludge or coal ash application and storage areas and
monitoring points identified on Operations Map and Land Use and Reclamation Map?
Yes
No
Was the landowners acknowledgement/consent included?
Yes
No
Was Module 27A provided (if coal ash not certified for beneficial use as a soil substitute
or soil additive)?
Yes
No
Was a generator certification provided?
No
Yes
Comments:
- 15 -
5600-PM-BMP0394
6/2016
BONDING
Permit area:
Mining area:
Operational area:
Was the Bond Calculation: Sheet completed?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Was the Agreement submitted?
Yes
No
Was a Finicial Guarantee requested?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Calculated bond amount:
Inflation factor:
(3 years / 5 years?)
Was a Land Reclamation Finicial Guarantee requested?
If yes, amount: $
If yes,
Acres:
Acreage keyed to Map 9?
Amount: $
Was a Phased deposit provided?
Amount: $
25% or $10,000:
Amount per year: $
Number of years:
- 16 -