My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-09-26_REVISION - M1980244
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2016-09-26_REVISION - M1980244
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/8/2020 9:29:43 AM
Creation date
9/30/2016 10:07:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
9/26/2016
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
CC+V
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM11
Email Name
TC1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
380
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
Are these water purchase agreements still valid as the Cripple Creek and Victor Gold <br /> Mining Company is now controlled by Newmont? <br /> RESPONSE: The water purchase agreements included in Appendix 9 of the <br /> Amendment 11 application are between CC&V and the cities of Cripple Creek and <br /> Victor. Newmont purchased CC&V as an entity and therefore the agreements are still <br /> valid. Since the application was submitted an updated agreement was signed with the <br /> City of Victor, a copy of which is provided in Attachment 12 to these responses. <br /> 51. Appendix 10, Chicago Tunnel Site(p. 5). The second paragraph states"An existing 18-inch <br /> culvert beneath the Cripple Creek access road will be replaced with a 24-inch culvert that <br /> can discharge the 10-year flow. Excess flow above 17-cfs will spill over a constructed <br /> riprap spillway and flow across the access road in an armored swale". <br /> • Why not use a larger culvert or put two 24-inch culverts in place of the existing 18-inch <br /> culvert and pass the entire 100-year peak flow without overtopping the road? <br /> RESPONSE: It's mostly a matter of scale. Photo I shows the existing 18-inch culvert <br /> that was installed before the SEDCAD hydrology model was prepared, and before it was <br /> found that the culvert would be adequate for a 5-year storm, but not 10 or 100 year <br /> storm events.A 24-inch pipe might be reasonable, but one can imagine a pipe twice that <br /> size in the photo. It should be remembered that the crossing is a "natural"streambed, <br /> not a diversion related to the mine activities. Photo 3 shows the Poverty Gulch <br /> streambed upstream from the crossing. A 30-inch pipe to carry that conveyance is a bit <br /> out of scale. <br /> t <br /> Photo 1: Chicago Tunnel Road Crossing <br /> The alternative proposed on Drawing CCVSAI 1-6 was to upgrade the culvert for a 10- <br /> year discharge (17 cfs/24-inch pipe)and provide the 6 ft wide armored spillway and <br /> swale for any excess flows to bypass the culvert and flow back to the Poverty Gulch <br /> Stream Channel. A 10x3Ox 24"deep sediment trap was included to slow the flow of the <br /> bypass enough to trap any sediment resulting from the limited period of high flow. <br /> Page 23 of 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.