2011-08-31_HYDROLOGY - C1981037 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: C1981037
• IBM Index Class Name: HYDROLOGY
• Doc Date: 8/31/2011
• Doc Name: Response to W.D. Corley Email
• From: Dan Hernandez
• To: Janet Binns
• Permit Index Doc Type: Sediment Pond Inspections
• Email Name: DAB
• Email Name: JHB
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Binns, Janet
From: Hernandez, Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:25 AM
To: Binns, Janet
Cc: Berry, David
Subject: RE: Energy Fuels sediment pont
Thanks for forwarding this, Janet. After I've read through this, I will visit with Dave to discuss our next steps.
Daniell Hernandez
Daniell. Hernandez
Senior Environmental Protection Specialist
Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety
1313 Sherman St, Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
New Phone Number. 303 - 866 -3567 ext 8126
Fax: 303 - 832 -8106
Website: www.mininq.state.co.us
From: Binns, Janet
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:16 AM
To: Hernandez, Daniel
Cc: Berry, David
Subject: FW: Energy Fuels sediment pont
Hi Dan & Dave,
A new query from Dr. Corley. I have not responded yet. Please give me direction.
J a wet
Environmental Protection Specialist II
Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety
phone: [phone] ext. 8107
fax: [phone]
From: W D Corley, Jr. fmailto:ajjcOatt.netl
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:26 AM
To: Binns, Janet; [e-mail]
Subject: Energy Fuels sediment pont
Ms. Binns and Ms. Shaeffer,
There was a rain at the GEC/Energy Fuels sites on Aug. 28th, and I was down there on Aug. 30th. More
questions were raised about the Energy sediment pond. When you were there to inspect the GEC issues with
me, we noticed that one of the southerly feeding culvert into the Energy pond was about 50% obstructed at its
outlet. Now it is 100% obstructed meaning that there has been about one foot of deposited sediment in that area
of the pond. Since the rain was not a big event it is evident that I misjudged the ability of the revegetation on
the Energy reclaimed site to prevent erosion. It is obvious that we should completely discard our idea to divert
Chen's Hill water into the pond. However, now we want to ask about the various possibilities concerning the
future of the pond. If it is left in place as is would we still be responsible for cleaning it out even we do not
divert Chen's Hill water into it? Or if it is not retained by us and is filled in by Energy, that will bury the outlets
of two feeding culverts which would be below grade. These culverts dewater the west side of the county road.
If these culverts are revised to be above grade they would put all water directly into the giant gully on the east
side of the road and accelerate the erosion there. If the culverts are simply eliminated and that water is left on
the west side of the road there will be the start of a gully on that side and there is less space for that to happen.
1