My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-08-31_HYDROLOGY - C1981037
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Hydrology
>
Coal
>
C1981037
>
2011-08-31_HYDROLOGY - C1981037
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:42:47 PM
Creation date
9/1/2011 8:48:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
HYDROLOGY
Doc Date
8/31/2011
Doc Name
Email Regarding Sediment Pond
From
W.D. Corley
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
Sediment Pond Inspections
Email Name
JHB
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
Binns, Janet <br />From: W D Corley, Jr. [ajjc @att.net] <br />Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:26 AM <br />To: Binns, Janet; eshaeffer @osmre.gov <br />Subject: Energy Fuels sediment pont <br />Ms. Binns and Ms. Shaeffer, <br />There was a rain at the GEC/Energy Fuels sites on Aug. 28th, and I was down there on Aug. 30th. More <br />questions were raised about the Energy sediment pond. When you were there to inspect the GEC issues with <br />me, we noticed that one of the southerly feeding culvert into the Energy pond was about 50% obstructed at its <br />outlet. Now it is 100% obstructed meaning that there has been about one foot of deposited sediment in that area <br />of the pond. Since the rain was not a big event it is evident that I misjudged the ability of the revegetation on <br />the Energy reclaimed site to prevent erosion. It is obvious that we should completely discard our idea to divert <br />Chen's Hill water into the pond. However, now we want to ask about the various possibilities concerning the <br />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 <br />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 <br />of two feeding culverts which would be below grade. These culverts dewater the west side of the county road. <br />If these culverts are revised to be above grade they would put all water directly into the giant gully on the east <br />side of the road and accelerate the erosion there. If the culverts are simply eliminated and that water is left on <br />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. <br />It seems to me that the pond is serving a useful purpose that cannot be lost, but the liability to us might be very <br />great. <br />There was also some additional narrowing of the road around Chen's Hill and it was impassable at the low spot <br />thru the East Pit due to wet sediment. <br />I would like for you to comment on the huge amount of sediment and silt leaving the premises. Is it possible <br />that the sediment leaving our property and going across our neighbor does contain mercury as our neighbor <br />fears? <br />W.D. Corley, Jr. <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.