My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV09401
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV09401
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:09:54 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:03:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981025
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
2/9/1996
Doc Name
Midterm Review Letter
From
Susan Burgmaier
To
Barbara Pavlik
Type & Sequence
MT3
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OE MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Dcpanment of Nawral Resources ~~~I~~~~~ <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Color, do R0203 <br />Phonc: (303) 866-3567 <br />FA%: (3031 R32-R106 <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />DATE: February 9, 1996 RESOURCES <br />Roy Romar <br />TO: Barbara Pavlik envemor <br />FROM: Susan Burgmaier~ lames s. E~hhe.,a <br />Executive Director <br />RE: North Thompson Creek Mines (C-81-025) Michael e. EotiR <br />Divisian Director <br />Midterm Review <br />I have finally completed my portion of the North Thompson Creek Mines Midterm Review. I <br />apologize for the delay, and appreciate your patience. <br />You asked me to complete the portion of the review pertaining to surface water, ponds, <br />impoundments, diversions, and alluvial valley floors. I reviewed the applicable sections of the <br />permit application package, pertinent revisions since the permit renewal, 1993-1995 inspection <br />reports, and 1993-1995 AHR's; and talked to Larry Routten. As a result, I have one concern <br />for your consideration. <br />Talking to Larry, I became aware that the ditch (D-7 and D-6) along the county road had failed <br />after a storm event. This is the ditch that diverts runoff from the refuse area, along the road, <br />and then over the mine area. Modifications to the ditch were required to abate a notice of <br />violation (NOV). I tried to figure out, reading the inspection reports, why the ditch might have <br />failed, and came up with a few possibilities. They are: <br />1 - The storm event might have been in excess of the 10-year, 24-hour event, which <br />is the event for which the D-6 portion is designed. <br />2 - The ditch and check dams might not have been constructed as designed. <br />3 - Replacing the sumps with check dams may not be suitable; additional or alternate <br />energy dissipation is required. <br />I don't have any way of verifying the storm size, I don't know if the ditches were properly <br />constructed (no measurements noted in inspection that terminated NOV), and I'm not ready to <br />throw out the check dam idea. However, I think we need to figure out what the problem was, <br />to ensure it does not happen again. In order to do that, I think we should start by verifying the <br />construction of the ditches. As soon as the snow is off, we need to compare what's in the field <br />to what we approved (Appendix 4-B, Volume III), and get them reworked if necessary. We'll <br />need to verify ditch dimensions and grade, and the location, dimensions, and substance of the <br />check dams. With the ditches and check dams as designed, we can see how it functions this <br />summer. If they are not working, we'll probably have to revisit the design. , <br />I have no other concerns with ponds, impoundments, or diversions, nor were any raised <br />regarding surface water information or alluvial valley floors. If you have any questions, let me <br />know. <br />c: Larry Routten <br />SLn\@0996. W P <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.