My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-04-08_REVISION - C1981019 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2010-04-08_REVISION - C1981019 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:03:36 PM
Creation date
4/9/2010 9:09:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
4/8/2010
Doc Name
Completeness Review (Memo)
From
Kent Gorham
To
Jim Stark
Type & Sequence
PR3
Email Name
JRS
SB1
KAG
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
13. The DRMS reviewed the erosion and sediment control plan initial submittal as Exhibit 7, <br />Item 23. Specific design detail was provided as Exhibit 7, Item 26 in the latest submittal <br />regarding the single sediment pond proposed. This question is now complete. Additional <br />detail regarding timing of disturbance and additional sediment control ditching may result <br />during the adequacy review. <br />20. This question is now complicated by the Western Alkaline Category of CFR 434 <br />regarding effluent limitations that would apply for topsoil storage areas at the mine. It is <br />not clear at this time how the Water Quality Control Division will classify these areas <br />when Colowyo applies for the new point source outfall at the single sediment pond. The <br />simplest way to handle this is for Colowyo to provide a generic SEDCAD model for <br />topsoil storage areas that demonstrates that the ring ditches will either contain all storm <br />runoff or treat the runoff to the settleable solids limitation. <br />21. As you note above, the question remains incomplete at this time. <br />22. Colowyo has provided modeling for post-mining drainages. However, the DRMS is not <br />in favor of constructing post-mining drainages along hillsides and slopes that are not part <br />of the natural drainage of the post-mining topography. Reconstructed drainages like Deer <br />Draw, Elk Draw, Bear Draw, Little Bear Draw, and Little Fox 1 are some of the proposed <br />channels that are not topographically controlled by the PMT. The long-term function and <br />stability of these drainages are in question. This question should be resolved prior to <br />review of any additional modeling. <br />23. As you note above, the question remains incomplete at this time. <br />If you have any questions, please let me know.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.