REV106835

• Permit No: C1981018
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 3/21/1994
• Doc Name: TR-34 DESERADO MINE WESTERN FUELS UTAH INC
• From: DMG
• To: BARB PAVLIK
• Type & Sequence: TR34
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

iii iiiiiiiiiiiii iii
999
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmern of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman 51., Room 215 l+y~~
Denver, Colorado 80203 II
Phone: [phone]
FA%: 13031 832 8106
DEPARTMENT OF
Date: March 21, 1994 NATURAL
RESOURCES
To: Barb Pavlik Roy Romrr
~ Gwrmm
From: Kent Gorham (~ ~<~~ Krn sa~aa.v
~f E.e<mive Di~raur
Re: TR-34, Deserado Mine, Western Fuels-Utah, Inc. ~,iinac~ a ~~~~
D~, min D~~rr~~r
I have completed my preliminary review of the above-mentioned revision application for the
Deserado Mine. My understanding from discussion with you is my review was to focus entirely
on diversion ditch design for Refuse Pile No. 4. The following questions or comments are a
result of that review.
1. The operator submitted SEDCAD+ channel designs for a number of segments of both the
east and the west side diversion ditches that surrounded Refuse Pile No. 4. Apparently, the
only way to correlate each SEDCAD+ design to Map 77 is by the slope gradients
represented for each segment. In the TR-34 file I located segments 16.10°~ and 15.4°~ for
the east ditch and segments 8.9°,6 and 13.37°~ for the west ditch. My comments for these
segments are as follows:
a) The operator did not show calculations which represent how the discharge for each
segment was determined. No channel sizing verification can be done without first
verifying the discharge data.
b) Why were two copies of the 15.40°,G and the 16.10°~ segments submitted?
2. Information on the other eight segments of the east and west ditch shown on Map 77 was
not located in the file I was given. There were, however, SEDCAD+ channel designs for
segments 1.00°~, 1.70°,G, and 2.12°h for the west ditch and 1.05°,6 and 1.67°k for the
east ditch. No evaluation of these designs was attempted. The operator should clarify the
information submitted and also submit discharge calculations for these remaining segments.
3. A letter in the file dated March 7, 1994 seems to indicate that the operator has no intention
of constructing and installing the permanent ditch in its final configuration until the pile is
completed. The operator should be advised that the diversion ditch for the pile is required to
be installed prior to the construction of the pile. Since the ditch itself is not part of the pile,
damage due to equipment should not be an issue.
4. The operator has provided SEDCAD+ riprap channel design information for some of the
steeper segments, yet seems to indicate that check dams will be used instead. If the
channels require riprap and the operator submits riprap designs then riprap should be
installed using the standard methods (i.e., gravel filter blankets, etc.l. Check dams are not a
viable alternative in this case.
KAG/bjw
m:loss\bjw\kap.bp