REV97070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Christine Johnston Apri[ 28, /998 Page 2 representatives have visited the site, no written acknowledgment has been provided. The Division believes this is imperative in the event that CDOT would need to make any changes to the drainage plan for that area at some future date. Written acknowledgment from CDOT would help to ensure that if CDOT plans or personnel change at a future date, they would be aware that the culvert conveys discharge from the loadout area. Please provide a written statement from CDOT that they are aware of MCC's proposed loadout area drainage plans, and that they have no objections to the plan. 4. MCC indicated that a copy of an amended CDPS permit was enclosed in the response. W e did not get the permit. 5. Our initial adequacy letter inquired about additional discharge (ie: volume) to the North Fork, not whether there would be an additional discharge point on the North Fork. It would appeaz that our concem was not clear to MCC. Please provide an update to the prediction of probable hydrologic consequences which includes a discussion of what impacts the additional discharge from the loadout might have on the North Fork. 6. MCC indicated that a new model for the pond design was included in the response. We did not get a new model. Please provide the model for our review. 7. The Division inquired about sediment control downgradient of the proposed sediment pond, and MCC indicated that sediment control was not required since the area is within the railroad right-of--way and not under MCC's control. a. Upon further review, the Division notes that a majority of the proposed disturbance area for the loadout azea drainage plan will fall outside of the currently approved permit boundary. MCC will need to include an incidental boundary revision prior to Division approval of the proposed structures. b. Review of aerial photographs and on-the-ground observations indicate there is a considerable amount of coally material in the immediate vicinity of the loadout. It would appear that this material is currently beyond areas approved for disturbance and outside of the permit area. Sections 4.04(1)(b) and (3) of the Rules requires that "support facilities...including...railroad loops, spurs, sidings...shall be designed, conswcted or reconstructed, and maintained.. To prevent...additional contributions of suspended solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area...and control and minimize erosion and siltation:' The Division will require that MCC include this additional disturbed area within the permit and disturbance area boundaries, and address sediment control requirements for the area. Enclosed is a portion of Map 53 which indicates the area which MCC will need to incorporate. 8. As noted in Item 6, above, the Division did not receive a revised model for the pond. Since we did not receive the model, it is not apparent whether this concem has been addressed.