My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11697
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11697
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:32:03 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:22:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984067
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
2/3/1985
Doc Name
PEERLESS RESOURCES INC COAL GULCH MINE ADEQUACY COMENTS
From
ANNE BALDRIGE
To
MIKE SAVAGE
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.
/
5
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
~. • <br /> <br />8. Where will Ditch No. 2 discharge and how will these flows reach the <br />existing drainage which is on the opposite side of Highway 160? <br />9. The disturbed area drainage as currently shown appears to be approximately <br />10 acres larger than the number used in the drainage calculations (making this <br />area 38 acres instead of 28 acres). <br />10. The curve number 72, used for undisturbed acreage is too low. From the <br />presented data it is shown that this number was derived using a cover of 75%. <br />The cover is not that high and this curve number should be revised to reflect <br />the accurate percent cover. <br />11. How is water east of the pond going to be channelized into the pond? It <br />appears that this water will just pond against the berm and could possible <br />flow to the east and enter Ditch No. 2 which carries undisturbed drainage. <br />Please clarify. <br />12. The culvert nomograph used in the design of the principal spillway should <br />be presented. <br />13. The pond will need a dewatering device. It is believed that the existing <br />culvert will dewater the pond much too rapidly to serve as a dewatering <br />device. The pond should be dewatered in 24 to 36 hours. <br />14. It is not clear from the design whether the pond is excavated or embanked <br />or a portion of both. This should be clarified. <br />15. How are the flows channeled into the emergency spillway? As shown on <br />Figure 1, the spillway is approximately 20 feet from the top of the embankment <br />and it is not clear from the drawing how water will cross this 20 feet. <br />16. What happens to flows once they exit the emergency spillway? How will <br />they be channelized to the existing drainage? <br />17. The principal and emergency spillway locations should be shown on Map 12. <br />18. The emergency spillway design is in error. The actual height of flow is <br />0.81 feet, but may change based upon redesign in addressing some of the above <br />comments. <br />19. How will the flows from the emergency spillway get through the berm? How <br />will the flows get across the haul road from the west side of the pond? <br />20. The designs for riprap should be presented in the permit application <br />where it is planned for use to prevent channel erosion. <br />21. When will the pond embankment be inspected as per page 4.05-8? <br />Roads <br />The access road labelled on the maps and referenced in the text will serve <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.