My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-02-03_PERMIT FILE - C1980004 (22)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1980004
>
2017-02-03_PERMIT FILE - C1980004 (22)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2017 8:44:19 AM
Creation date
7/13/2017 8:40:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980004
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
2/3/2017
Section_Exhibit Name
Appendix P Water Depletion Estimates
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.
/
69
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
APPENDIX P <br />ponds at the Fruita Loadout Facility have been designed to retain water from 100 -year <br />precipitation events from runoff within the facility...". As correctly stated on page 12 <br />of the BA, the three ponds are designed to contain a 25 -year storm event. <br />Correction: As correctly stated on page 12 of the Biological Assessment, the three ponds <br />are designed to contain a 25 -year storm event. The Addendiun #2 (page 2) sentence <br />should read: <br />"The three sediment ponds at the Fruita Loadout Facility have been designed to retain <br />water from 25 -year precipitation events from runoff within the facility...". <br />3. The BA (page 12) and Addendum #2 (page 2) states "sediment would be removed from <br />all ponds when the ponds are 75 percent full of sediment". CAM has provided a <br />clarification to this statement. <br />Correction: CAM has clarified that the sediment would be removed when the sediment <br />level reaches no more than 75 percent of the designed sediment capacity. Both the BA <br />(page 12) and Addendum #2 (page 2) should read: <br />"Sediment would be removed from a pond when the sediment level reaches no more than <br />75 percent of the designed sediment capacity". <br />The end result would be the same, as water and sediment would be removed from the ponds to <br />an approved disposal facility, stated in Conservation Measure #4 (page 27 of the BA), rather than <br />discharged directly into Reed Wash as in the Proposed Action. The conservation measure would <br />still avoid or minimize effects by the Proposed Action to Colorado pikeminnow and critical <br />habitat in Reed Wash and the 100 -year floodplain as stated in the BA. As correctly stated in <br />Addendum #2, there is no surface connectivity between swales on the west side of Reed Wash <br />(addressed earlier in the Addendum) and the sediment ponds which are on the east side of Reed <br />Wash. <br />Thank you and your staff for the coordinated effort. Please feel free to contact me at <br />doacula _.osmre.g-ov or (303) 293-5044 regarding any questions concerning the corrections and <br />clarification language above. <br />Sincerely, <br />Dawn S. Pacula, Natural Resource Specialist <br />Program Support Division <br />cc: USFWS-Grand Junction, Terry Ireland <br />CO-DRMS-Grand Junction, Mike Boulay <br />PR -02 10/12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.