My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV104619
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV104619
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:15:58 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 1:19:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980047
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
12/16/1982
From
CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES
To
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
Type & Sequence
AM4
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.
/
2
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
2 <br />Without the construction of the dam, the capacity of the downstream <br />channel will be insufficient to meet large flows and the channel along the <br />road embankment will have to be protected somehow. Either the dam must be <br />built or the downstream channel protected. The decision to build the dam <br />wi a so eterm ne when several areas (area 9--Davis Gulch Dam and area <br />15--Southdraw Dam material stockpile) will be reclaimed. If the decision <br />is deferred too long, considerable erosion and sedimentation can occur in <br />these areas. <br />'~5) There is no evidence that either the Davis Gulch Dam or Middle <br />Fork Dam are necessary for sediment control. The original plan left open <br />the possibility that the dams be dismantled upon completion of the project. <br />Neither is vital to the permanent reclamation of the areas as long as the <br />owns ream c anne s are protecte suc that t e can carr their natural <br />ows. There appears to be a very substantial margin of safety for even the <br />samller Middle Fork Dam under consideration, as its outflow is limited to <br />70 cfs whereas the downstream channel capacity is nearly 900 efs. Design <br />considerations for the dam, however, should be further explained. <br />~6) If the Davis Gulch Dam is not constructed, the interim facili- <br />ties (cofferdam, etc.) will need to undergo thorough analysis to determine <br />their suitability for long term use. These structures were not intended for <br />long term use and may be subject to untimely failure. <br />7O The narrative provides inadequate discussion as to how the pre- <br />cipitation falling on the relatively large, flat surface (roads, mine bench <br />surface, La Sal Laydown site and Plateau site) will be controlled. Will it <br />be detained or carried off site? <br />8) Several areas with substantial slopes are expected to be <br />stabilized simply by application of dust suppressants (Coarse Ore Gulch and <br />Plateau Site). Dust suppressants are not necessarily designed to prevent <br />water erosion and their application for this purpose is suspect. Dust <br />suppressants are warranted for flat areas that are not likely to be seriously <br />affected by water erosion <br />In general,~my impression of the reclamation efforts of Exxon on <br />their Colony Project are that they are fairly reasonable and done essentially <br />in good faith. Some problems exist particularly in the Coarse Ore Gulch <br />and Plant Site areas. IC is imperative that the decision on the Davis Gulch <br />Dam be made as soon as possible such that the downstream channel can be <br />properly protected if the dam is not build and so the dam site can be <br />reclaimed. Indefinite continuation of the disturbance at the dam site is <br />unacceptable. <br />If you have any questions regarding these comments or any other <br />matters, please do not hesitate to contact me. <br />Sin erel/y, <br />Pete Gowen <br />Consulting Hydrologist <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.