REV15251 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~" o~rGivFfl JAN 2 2 1996 Division of nnmerais 6 ueoioyy 154 Tunnel Drive Canon City, CO. 81212 Jan. 19, 1996 ~II ~I~II~II~I~~~~I~ RE: Tezak Heavy F,gtiipment Co. , Inc. , ~,. S. Technical Revision tp Permit M-77-•193 Amendment Mr. Tom Schreiner, IIw. Pmt. Spec. Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Shexman Street, Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Mr. Schreinex: We are faxing this letter to you, as you suggested on the telephone on Wednesday, January 17. We have read Mr. Klco's letter of January 5, 1996. We also received and read his report dated Dec. 8, 1995. We compared these to the con3i.tions set out by Minerals and Geology. Condition #2 - Stormwater Management. requires a"technical revision which provides appropriate stormwater runoff calculations, .. " The expanded quarry area, as described in the original amendment. packet, is of "extreme relief, with minimal soils, and a high discharge rate." In Mr. Klco's report of Dec. 8 he outlines "Tunnel Drive Stonn Outfall Design Parameters" using "Unit Hydrograph Type" as "Forested.' The word "forested" hardly describes the expanded quarry area nor the current.quarxy area with their natural rack walls, arroyos and sparse vegetatfoA:.- Condition #2 - Stortnwater Management also requires that the technucal revision provide 'engzneex~.ng designs and plans, as well as all neces:~ approvals for the conveyance of stormwater " The verbal description of the. new stormwater management plan plu:r the one-page drawing seem inadequate to qualify as proper "engineering designs and plans." The plan is grossly deficient in the completeness of its explanation of the construction of ponds #1 and #5 and the routing of watex "via upland diversion" on into Sand Gulch drainage area. There are no written approvals included in the present Technical Revision. The current Technical Revision regarding stormwater management being a twv-fold plan, we have questions about each part of the plan. I. (A) Will the holding ponds as designed and planned actually insure zero storm discharge to the Tunnel Drive area? (If this be so, why a spillway on pond #4?)