My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE24478
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE24478
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:33:15 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:43:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984062
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
11/24/1986
Doc Name
ENERGY MINE 3 PROPOSED DECISION C-84-062 TR REVISE SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
From
MLRD
To
COLORADO YAMPA COAL CO
Violation No.
TD1990020244004TV2
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.
/
9
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
Richartl D. Lamm <br />Governor <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />Davie H. Gerchea Executive Director <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DI\ <br />DAVID C. SHELTO N, Director <br />DATE: March 21, 1985 <br />T0: Dan Mathews <br />FROM: Anne Baldrige <<~''~"'~ <br />RE: Energy Mine No. 3, C-84-062, Stipulation Responses - Stipulation Nos. <br />7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 1,3, 14,15, <br />I have finally completed my review of the above noted stipulations. Following <br />are my comments. <br />Stipulation No. 7 - The design presented for the Middle Creek Detention Basin <br />is incorrect. CYCC incorrectly used a CN of 70 which is too low, however, the <br />pond is so oversized that the Division should allow CYCC to go ahead with <br />construction but resubmit the correct design calculations. Note: The reason <br />the Pond is so oversized is because CYCC plans on leaving it as a permanent <br />livestock watering pond. Using SCS "Ponds" criteria the pond was designed for <br />the 25 year 24 hour storm (see Stipulation No. 11). <br />Stipulation No. 8 - The operator proposes pumping as a means of dewatering the <br />two ponds. Given that the ponds are incised this is the most practical <br />solution. There is one problem with this method. Both ponds are expected to <br />receive water from the water table since the ponds lie, in part, below the <br />water table. This has already been evidenced at the Mine No. 3 Detention <br />Basin. I suggest that the Division require CYCC to place gages in both ponds <br />to clearly indicate the level each pond must be pumped to in order to contain <br />the runoff and sediment generated by a 10 year 24 hour storm. There are also <br />some problems wtt'~~r rights if water is allowed to remain in the ponds, <br />see Stipulation No. 10. <br />Stipulation No. 9 - Has been satisfied. <br />Stipulation No. 10 - No information on this stipulation was found. This is in <br />violation of the Division's 60 day requirement in the findings document if <br />indeed nothing has been submitted. <br />Stipulation No. 11 - No reclamation plan has been submitted for the basins. <br />All the Division's concerns for these ponds as permanent structures as <br />outlined in the findings document have not been addressed. In addition, <br />before the Division can approve these as permanent ponds, Stipulation No. 10 <br />must be fulfilled. This stipulation (11) has not been fulfilled because CYCC <br />maintains these ponds are suitable as permanent ponds for livestock watering. <br />423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.