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
<br />Memo - Stipulation Responses -2- <br />Stipulation No. 13 - All designs have been submitted. <br />exist with the submitted material. <br />March 21, 1985 <br />Note: Two problems <br />1. The design of ditch F2 showed that the existing 24" diameter <br />culvert passing flows under the haul road is not adequate. CYCC has <br />passed the responsibility of replacing this culvert with a 36" diameter <br />culvert to Twentymile Coal Company. The Division should keep track of <br />this culvert replacement. <br />2. The submitted material includes a design for Ditch P-1 which does <br />not agree with that already contained in the permit. To avoid <br />confusion CYCC should remove Ditch P-1 from the submitted material. <br />Stipulation No. 14 - No information was found. <br />Stipulation No. 15 - The response for this stipulation was to request a small <br />area exemption for this area. This is a valid request, and I recommend <br />approval, however, I would suggest the construction of a berm on the uphill <br />side of the Homestead Irrigation Ditch to berm the flows from this area. <br />Finally, because this permit application addressed the ponds as permanent <br />structures and the Division is only approving them as temporary, the ponds are <br />much larger than necessary. There are several errors in the design <br />calculations, however, the ponds are adequate. Should CYCC provide additional <br />information to allow re-evaluation of these structures as permanent then the <br />Division should review the entire design. My copy, which I am returning to <br />you, is marked with changes that reflect the errors. <br />1. Both the Middle Creek and Mine No. 3 pond volumes were incorrectly <br />figured. The Middle Creek Detention Basin should have an interval <br />between elevations 20 and 15 of 5 feet not 2.5 feet. This increases <br />the volume of this basin from 7.98 ac-ft to 8.41 ac-ft. The volume of <br />the Energy Mine No. 3 Detention Basin was figured incorrectly using the <br />"Saunders Step Method" and should be 18.0 ac-ft instead of 21.3 ac-ft. <br />/ph <br />Doc. No. 8734 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.