INSPEC38280 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

gage depth reading of .20 feet, `or 2.4 inches. The second set of information had been obtained from the manufacturer at the request of the operator. The information professes that the flume can be read to a flow depth of .25 inches, equating to a flow of .O1 cfs, or 4.48 gpm. No information is given on accuracy. Trapper stated that the original source of this flume flow information may have come from SCS. Both the Division and Trapper are continuing to research this issue to ensure that the operator is using the appropriate equipment. 13. OSM stated that it's position on water quality compliance is that the point of compliance for all water quality standards would be where the water flow leaves the disturbed area. The Division stated that it's position is that NPDES standards apply where the water flow leaves the disturbed area, and at a defined point source. Material damage assessments are made using receiving stream standards, and usually after dilution with the stream, in this case, the Yampa River. 14. OSM believed that "dozer basins" need to be permitted. According to OSM, the permitting requirements would follow the August 8, 1996 memorandum from Russell Price of the OSM Western Support Center to the OSM Albuquerque field office. On September 17, 1996, the Division sent a letter to Trapper, requesting that a technical revision be submitted by October 15, 1996 which addresses the permitting of "dozer basins" in accordance with the above-mentioned memorandum. Trapper has submitted this technical revision by the requested date and the Division is currently reviewing the submittal. 15. OSM commented that one small gully across the light use road leading to the Ute pond needs attention. Although the gully was small, the Division asked Trapper to blade the gully before it became a problem. Trapper has stated since then that the gully has been bladed. 16. After sediment cleaning at the Elk pond, a small peninsula of sediment remained. OSM believed that better access for equipment may need to be provided in order to completely remove pond sediment. Trapper responded that the access had been blocked by a fence and that Trapper was going to finish the pond cleaning next year. The Division believes that this OSM recommendation is valid. However, it should be noted that this, and the one at the East Pyeatt pond No. 1, are the only such occurrences of a small amount of sediment remaining after pond cleaning that have been observed by the Division. In spite of the remaining sediment, the Elk pond and the East Pyeatt pond No. 1 still 7