Laserfiche WebLink
y L1nl WJ1W..I Pl{ <br />' V\IMw M1C 11,,JCY\`S_I~A~~~VII{ DYIkPI In 1n..~,)~(°,, <br />G r•\ \VI I~Q Y/1,^vlty cJiJ t III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />~~ Cyprus Yampa Valley Coel Corporation zsse <br />An AMrNele or Cypus Mrnerels Company Oak yyy <br />Phone \.,wr o~sxtu <br />~~~~~~~ <br />September 26, 1988 ~ ~ P 2 7 1988 <br />A/I-aED L.,~FdU <br />~tECLAvN1ATIOM DlvlSiOpd <br />David Berry <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203-2273 <br />Dear David: <br />Re: Channel Repair Plan Modification - Technical Revision 88-19; <br />o,.....,:. r of mi <br />The following submittal responds to your concerns for the Area 51 East <br />channel, as outlined in the Division's letter of 10 August 1988. This <br />letter also serves to resolve the stipulation attached to the 30 August 1988 <br />Technical Revision Division Form. <br />In order to clarify the Area 51 <br />Permit Revision No. 2 document have <br />included with this response submittal. <br />East situation, pages 52 and 52a of the <br />been revised. Those revised pages are <br />CI•iLRD CONCERN: <br />Area 51 East <br />The technical revision application indicates that the current channel <br />PG-51-2 is stable and the surrcunding drainage area "represents the final <br />planned drainage area." We agree that the existing channel PG-51-2 is <br />relatively stable, and that further channel improvement may not be necessary <br />if the current basin configuration is indeed the same as the proposed <br />reclaimed configuration. However, after reviewing the Postmining Topography <br />Map (Map 48A), it appears that the reclaimed Basin PG-51-2 may be much <br />larger than the e~:isting basin. If water is routed from the upper areas <br />(Area 26) and under the proposed permanent read to channel PG-51-2, the <br />existing drainage area will be increased considerably. ke understand that <br />runoff from the upper area basin may be routed along the road, to the north, <br />then into the 36 inch culvert leading to Channel PG-60-1; however, this may <br />lead to excessive erosion along the road. Also, the runoff from the upper <br />drainage area may ultimatel~~ pass to Channel PG-51-2, if the road is not <br />well maintained. <br />Please clarify this issue. Specifically, will the drainage from Area 26 be <br />routed along the road to the channel PG-60-1, or will the runoff pass to <br />Channel PG-51-2. If the runoff will flow to Channel PG-51-2, then provide <br />documentation to show that the Channel PG-51-2 will be stable. If, however, <br />~~~~ <br />