My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2019-08-29_REVISION - C1981018
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981018
>
2019-08-29_REVISION - C1981018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2024 9:44:19 AM
Creation date
9/3/2019 9:01:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981018
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
8/29/2019
Doc Name Note
(Memo)
Doc Name
SEDCAD and Water Quality Review for PAR
From
Rob Zuber
To
Clayton Wein
Email Name
CCW
RDZ
JDM
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
Interoffice Memorandum <br /> To: Clayton Wein <br /> From: Rob Zuber leoZ <br /> Date: August 29, 2019 <br /> Subject: Deserado TR-72 SEDCAD and water quality compliance review for PAR <br /> have reviewed a portion of the TR-72 submittal from Blue Mountain Energy, namely the <br /> Hydrology of RP-A and the proposed pond (Illustration 59) and the analysis of using Red Wash <br /> Reservoir#2 as a point of compliance (Illustration 60). 1 have the following points for your <br /> preliminary adequacy letter. <br /> Hydrology for RP-A and Pond (Illustration 59) <br /> • Blue Mountain Energy needs to provide to the Division a map or figure that shows the <br /> channels included in the SEDCAD model. The "schematic" in Illustration 59 appears to <br /> be missing this information. <br /> • On Map 162A, please provide more detail on the spillway. Will a riser pipe be attached <br /> to the pipes that pass through the dam? <br /> • What size are the spillway pipes that pass through the dam? Are they 30" diameter(as <br /> it says on Map 162A) or 36" (as it says in report text)? <br /> Analysis of Red Wash Reservoir#2 (Illustration 60) <br /> • Blue Mountain Energy should include a discussion in Illustration 60 of the context of <br /> using this reservoir as a point of compliance and include a discussion of how this relates <br /> to requirements in their permit with the Colorado Water Quality Control Division or to <br /> other water quality requirements. <br /> • On Page 3, in the third paragraph,the following sentence requires more explanation: <br /> "Based on experience with other sediment ponds at the base of refuse piles, Red Wash <br /> Reservoir will likely remain dry." This sentence is unclear to the Division for two <br /> reasons. First, will Red Wash be at the base of a refuse pile?Second, are you stating <br /> that refuse piles at Deserado produce less runoff than typical rangeland? <br /> • Page 7 is not clear. It appears that the polygons represent different soil units, but the <br /> numbers for each type are not readable. Please provide a clearer version of this map. <br /> • Illustration 59 indicates that the 10-year discharge from the RP-A pond is 22.59 cfs, but <br /> in Illustration 60 the inflow to Red Wash Reservoir#2 is only 6.59 cfs (10-year event). Is <br /> it your assumption that the flow from the upper pond (below the RP-A) will infiltrate <br /> between the two ponds? <br /> • On Map 163,the Rip Rap Chart indicates a Spillway Slope with a slope of 33%. Please <br /> show this location on the plan view. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.