My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR13017
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
3000
>
APPCOR13017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:33:21 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:37:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984062
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
3/1/1984
Doc Name
ENERGY MINE 3 FILE C-84-062 ADEQUACY REVIEW
From
MLRD
To
COLO YAMPA COAL CO
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.
/
13
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 />-g- <br />1. The two proposed permanent ponds are located approximately 1/4 mile <br />apart. According to SCS Public Standard 378, "livestock water within a <br />pasture bounded by fences or a natural livestock barrier generally should not <br />be closer together than a travel distance of three-eighths to three-fourths <br />mile in foothills or rolling land.° During dry seasons, when tt is proposed <br />to use these ponds, Middle Creek will not be flowing and, therefore, will not <br />present a natural barrier. Additionally, to Section 2.05.5, it 15 stated that <br />"CYCC will avoid fencing wherever possible." Before the Division will allow <br />two permanent ponds so close together, CYCC must address the pasture <br />boundaries in view of the above concerns. <br />2. Before a reasonable assessment of the effects of the permanent ponds can <br />be made, the Division needs maps at a sufficient scale detailing construction <br />of these ponds. The maps should include inside contours of the pond, bottom <br />elevation of the pond, ditch inflow points, spillway and embankment details, <br />and pond location with respect to Middle Creek. <br />3. The fact that these ponds are proposed permanent ponds should be discussed <br />1n the permit application itself, and not ,Just to Exhibit 3. <br />4. The 10-year, 24-hour storm must be contained in the ponds. If high <br />inflows result in water levels above the level required to allow adequate <br />storage of this storm, provisions must be made in the permit application to <br />dewater the ponds to the necessary level. <br />5. On page 2.05-162, tt 15 stated that the detention basins will be monitored <br />at inlet and outlet. Will each inlet be monitored? <br />6. If the Mine No. 3 detention pond is proposed as a permanent pond according <br />to the deta7ls in Addendum 1, the following additional information 1s <br />necessary. <br />a. It 1s proposed to fill this pond with 100,000 yd3 of overburden <br />material. Where will this material come from? It 15 not accounted for <br />on the Spoil Grading Plan, Map No. 10. Based upon the present <br />reclamation plan, 1t does not appear that there is 100,000 yd3 <br />additional material available for placement in the pond. <br />b. If 100,000 yd3 1s available, how will the filling be <br />accomplished? W111 it be dumped artd compacted? Where will the access <br />road to accomplish this be located? W711 the material be spread evenly <br />throughout the pond, or will certain areas be filled 1n to reduce the <br />pond surface area? <br />c. When will this filling be accomplished? What provisions will be <br />made tf there is a significant amount of water in the pond at the <br />proposed time of filling? <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.