My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2014-11-25_REVISION - C1981014
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981014
>
2014-11-25_REVISION - C1981014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:55:37 PM
Creation date
1/7/2015 10:19:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/25/2014
Doc Name
Email from Linda Saunders
From
Linda Saunders
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR42
Email Name
RDZ
MPB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1/7/2015 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: Size and acre feet of water in Pond 4 and evaporation cal ulation <br />On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Linda Saunders <saunders615 @live.com> wrote: <br />Hi Rob, <br />I am going to request that Pond 4 remain to keep water from the <br />refuse pile from entering Newlin Creek. I read the Division of Water <br />Resources requirements. <br />Based on the ownership map I calculate Pond 4 to be .688 acres. <br />The scale says 1 inch =400 feet but the scale diagram is not 1 inch <br />equals 400 feet. Which is correct ?? <br />Now the dilemma is that Pond 4 does not always have water in it and <br />when it does it varies. Many years there is no water. <br />So from what you have seen how many acre feet of water has been <br />it the last several years when you have been on site. The largest <br />amount I estimate that Pond 4 would hold is 1 acre foot. Would you <br />agree with that or tell me what you think. <br />The evaporation is over the winter and is 100% in my estimation. <br />According to the Phase II sediment pond section it states that the <br />level of total dissolved solids contributed by the runoff and pond <br />inflow was to be calculated where there is no available discharge. I <br />asked George if Pond 4 water was ever tested for TDS and other <br />problem contaminants like manganese and radio active particles and <br />he said no. Why was this not done and compared to off site <br />like /adjacent land? <br />If we do not get permission to retain Pond 4 then EFCI is required to <br />fill and revegetate Pond 4 and two years is required before <br />the bond is released. <br />in TR42_adequacy letter.pdf <br />44K <br />hftps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=e29129fcb5&vi ew =pt &search= i nbox &th= 14ac54062f8187fd &si m 1= 14ac54062f8187fd 3/3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.