GENERAL40438 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ar1C0 Coal company "" A •V!t ~t nrn•r-r. Col",~'•~~' ~~~'"'/ l oi~~.. ~..,:~: 40.E r ~ '1 i III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII [ I; ~• 1 February 19,1982 Mr. Tom Gillis Mined Land Reclamation Division Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Tom: G~i!I'd1.!J i_;'.!: it '.. .' '... , I(1hJ Colo L•~:p! ul ii;,~C.,~! ,.,..;~~~,~,,.~ Reference is made to your letter of January 13, 1982 which discusses, among other things, CMLRD's review of Atlantic Richfield's response to Stipulation No. 2 which was issued as part of the CMLRD's permit granted to Atlantic Richfield for its Mt. Gunnison No. 1 Mine. This stipulation requires that Atlantic Richfield submit a sediment control plan for the proposed loadout facility and railroad siding at Mt. Gunnison. As l understand, the two concerns about our pond design were raised by Jim Herron of your office. The first concerned our sediment storage calculations. 1 have enclosed a copy of a letter from Merrick & Company which describes the design criteria and computations used in sizing the pond. Merrick c~ Company is the engineering firm that designed the sediment pond at the loadout site. Please note that Merrick did not use 0.1 acre-feet of sediment per acre of disturbed area to calculate sediment storage but rather used the Universal Soils Loss Cquation. The second concern Jim raised in your letter concerns the sediment pond dimensions. To try to clarify his questions, I had Dave Frazier of A4errick contact Jim. As I understand, after their discussion and after Jim's review of the pond design provided in Exhibit 3.1.1.D of our MfScR Plan, Tim now agrees that the pond is adequately sized. Thus the concern is now moot.