REV92050 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

light of Reschke's vow to protest. If the inlet location is not of technical consequence, I will merely ask Reschke to revise the RSN-a7 drawing (although he probably will protest that also). A few other Roadside Issues: First, the abatement deadline for NOV C-97-016 is January 1, 1998. I received TR-23 yesterday, which contains revised designs for CRDA-2 upper diversion (the ditch would be enlarged and gradient modified in some locations I believe). Reschke indicates that RSRDA lower collection ditch and CRDA-2 lower collection ditch would be graded to approved design. He states in the cover letter that Roadside south Diversion locations are, in fact adequately sized to carry the design flow, and that the SEDCAD calculations Erica did are flawed because of the vegetation cover factor used. I had indicated 60~ grass cover based on my inspection observations. Reschke said this was too high, and that in any event it was cheatgrass which would constitute "D" class vegetation, rather than "B" class vegetation which Erica assumed in her SEDCAD runs. The cover is indeed primarily cheatgrass, which is low-growing and rather flimsy, in comparison to more robust perennials such as smooth brome, wheatgrasses, etc. I will re-check my eyeball cover estimate on Monday, and let you know what I thin. I will FEDEX the TR submittal over today so you will have it on Monday Even if we approved the TR on Monday (doubtful), the decision would not be published until later in the week and would not become final prior to the January 1 abatement deadline. CRDA 2 upper diversion work will require some time after approval to complete. So, again we are looking either at an extension or an FTACO. January 1 is the 90th day, so extension would require a Mike Long approval, I think. One factor to consider is that the NOV modification (which is what the TR is in response to) was sent out on October 21. I had thought there was provision in Rules to extend up to 90 da s .~„ J ~~` ~ following mr,~~i motion of a violation but am unable to find it is would ~h. '` ,,~~JJ px~t"fne abatemenc aeaaline a c uanuary l7, wnlcn mignt ne aoanre, nut ~ ~v ~~ ~`'~~t apparently the 90 day period cannot be re-initiated upon NOV modification. J ~ /^ ~.~~ X DsiESs you 1 e o o Long recommencing extension for another month, to February 1. A final Roadside matter for you to ponder. Due to Grand Valley Water Users concerns regarding potential discharge from North Portal Coal Yard Sediment Pond No. 4 into the adjacent canal, Reschke will be amending Pond 4 to totally contain the 25 year event. Existing would be removed, and I assume the method for dewatering would be pumping to Coal Canyon. Reschke wanted to know whether he would be required to do stability analysis similar to Pond 12, for this modification to Pond 4. I said probably not, since the concerns with Pond 12 had to do with the fact that Pond 12 would contain water on a permanent basis, whereas Pond 4 rarely held water. However I said I would check with hydrologists and get back to him. This is the pond where the bottom collapsed several feet in one location last year, and was subsequently filled in and re-compacted, so I would say there might be reason to question the engineering properties of the pond floor and embankment. That's about it for now, I guess. I'll be trying to get a Deserado "emergency drill hole MR" approval for your signature this afternoon. Also, I found myself in Rangely last week with no steel toed boots and ended up buying a new pair. A can't recall current Division policy regarding boot reimbursement; is there any? ,~.,~~. .~.Y „~-wr'n-~' -. ~v ~i'~