My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-01-27_REVISION - C1981019 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2011-01-27_REVISION - C1981019 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:29:29 PM
Creation date
1/28/2011 9:44:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
1/27/2011
Doc Name
Adequacy Review # 3 (Memo)
From
Kent Gorham
To
Jim Stark, Sandy Brown
Type & Sequence
TR81
Email Name
JHB
JRS
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
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 C O L O R A D O <br />D IV IS I ON OF <br />Phone: (303) 866-3567 RECLAMATION <br />FAX: (303) 832-8106 Interoffice Memo M I N I N G <br />- tSt- <br />SAF E T Y <br />To: Jim Stark <br />From: Kent Gorham <br />CC: Sandy Brown <br />Date: January 27, 2011 <br />RE: Adequacy review #3, TR-81, Colowyo Mine, C-81-019 <br />I have completed my review of the materials received from Colowyo on January 6, 2011 <br />addressing the Divisions second adequacy letter for Technical Revision No. 81 (TR-81) for <br />the Colowyo Mine, #C-81-019. My comments are ordered as per the question numbers of <br />that letter. Any remaining concerns are highlighted in bold for the specific question. <br />12. Response partially accepted. Please add the flow direction arrows the terrace <br />benches on Map 41 a as per the map legend. <br />13. Response accepted. Footer changes were noted. <br />14. Response accepted. West Taylor pond design is explained. <br />15. Response accepted. Table 4 and sediment loading is corrected. <br />35. Response not accepted. The Division did not ask that small "V's" be added to each <br />contour line where each tributary crosses a contour line. The Division's issue is that <br />Tributary ditches B, D, E, G, and H do not appear to be topographically controlled by <br />the post-mining topography. Further discussion of each problematic tributary is proved <br />as follows. <br />o Tributary ditch B empties onto the undisturbed area on the side of a ridge and <br />was not present in the pre-mining topography. <br />o Tributary D appears to need moved to the west and the 8050 foot PMT contour <br />should loop back further into the disturbed area. <br />o Tributary E empties into no apparent existing channel and appears to be <br />unnecessary as no drainage was present in the pre-mining topography. <br />o Tributary G appears to be mis-aligned based on the post-mining topography <br />and/or may need an additional branch to the west. <br />Office of Office of <br />Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.