My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-04-10_REVISION - C1981019 (8)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2013-04-10_REVISION - C1981019 (8)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:19:24 PM
Creation date
4/11/2013 7:26:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/10/2013
Doc Name
Fourth Adequacy Letter
From
DRMS
To
Colowyo Coal Company
Type & Sequence
TR95
Email Name
RDZ
DIH
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.
/
5
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
Page 4of5 <br />snowmelt or rain over frozen ground, these three ponds normally receive no inflow from <br />surface runoff generated by storm events in recent history. All of these structures were <br />designed and constructed utilizing much lower curve numbers than those currently in <br />force today or those proposed in the TR -95 submittal. <br />Division Comment (Fourth Adequacy) <br />The vegetation growth on areas that have been Phase III released (where vegetation <br />is at least 10 years old) could be vastly different than areas with three years of <br />growth. Does Colowyo have any data showing that reclamation areas that are <br />approximately three years old produce little runoff from a IO year or greater storm? <br />COMMENT #4 <br />My apologies for not being more clear when I repeated the original comment in my July <br />2, 2012 letter. What I meant to say is that, in the Division's opinion, Colowyo did not <br />answer the question. Please describe how each of the values in the sediment loading <br />section of Table 6 is calculated, including the sources of information. This should be <br />done in a very direct manner, possibly using an example. This issue has also been briefly <br />discussed with Colowyo staff (Kurt Blunt) at the mine's administration office. <br />Colowyo 's Response: <br />Colowyo has included the previously approved version of Table 6 in this package and is <br />no longer seeking to modem it through this process. <br />Division Comment (Fourth Adequacy) <br />This response is adequate. <br />GENERAL COMMENT <br />It is very important to consider what is happening on the ground. The SEDCAD models <br />are valuable information, but the Division is also concerned about the stability of <br />channels and the functioning of ponds. The effectiveness of these structures will <br />determine if Colowyo is in compliance with the Division's permit and with your CDPS <br />permit and will be important in the context of future bond release applications. We <br />encourage Colowyo to consider these factors when proposing modeling updates, when <br />constructing structures, and when scheduling reclamation. <br />Colowyo 's Response: <br />Colowyo believes that the Division's expectations of conditions under which these <br />structures, the approved designs, and the modeling inputs are reasonably expected to <br />physically, and by modeling assumption, maintain stability and proper Junction, need to <br />be clearly defined so that additional discussion and evaluation of the applicable <br />regulatory mandates can be applied in this case. <br />Division Comment (Fourth Adequacy) <br />No further response is required of Colowyo. However, based on the following <br />history of incidents at Colowyo, the Division believes that it is not unreasonable to <br />use the existing curve numbers for the hydrologic models: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.