Laserfiche WebLink
Kn <br /> 19 ht <br /> Pijsold <br /> Table 3.1 <br /> Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mining Co.(Newmont) <br /> CONSULT Cripple Creek and Victor Mine <br /> Stormwater Management Plan Evaluation <br /> Summary of Modified SWMP Evaluation Findings <br /> Impoundment Spillway Inflow Diversion Channel <br /> Required Weir Required Chute As-built <br /> Required Volume: As built Weir As built Chute As built Riprap Required Riprap Required Peak As built Riprap Required Riprap <br /> EMP As-built Volume <br /> Upgrades Spillway Peak Flow: Peak Flow: Upgrades Channel Flow Upgrades <br /> s 2x 10yr/24hr Runoff Flow Capacity Flow Capacity Stability Stability Flow: 100yr/24hr Stability Stability <br /> (ft ) 3) required? exists? ) 100yr/24hr ( ) 100yr/24hr Safety Safety required? Exists? Capacity ( ) y required? <br /> ( <br /> ft (cfs (cfs) cfs (cfs) Factor of Safe Factor of Safe (cfs) cfs Factor of Safety Factor of Safety <br /> 170 39 No NA NA NA NA NA <br /> "es No NA 170 NA 170 NA 1.2 Weir and chute No NA NA <br /> 8b 560,736 501,995 No Yes 34 124 90 124 1.3 1.2 Weir and chute 300 131 <br /> 8c 163,690 111,433('� No Yes 42 29 153 29 1.4 1.2 No No NA NA NA NA NA <br /> 9a-d(combined) 270.351 99,863(6) No Yes(9a only) 0 33-41 NA 33-41 NA 1.2 Weir and chutef6) No NA NA NA NA NA <br /> 11 286.146 214,967"' No`" No NA NA NA NA NA NA No'- No NA NA NA NA NA <br /> 13 74,817 478,383 Yes No NA 100 NA 100 NA 1.2 Weir and chute 250 57 <br /> 16 167,265 21,930 No Yes 25 4 111 36 None 1.2 Chute Yes 0 10 2.7 1.2 Yes <br /> 17a-Yes 34 30 50 30 1.9 1.2 Chute Yes ill 36 None 1.2 Yes <br /> 17, 17a, 171b 0 NA 1.2 <br /> (combined) 526,446 193,518 No 17b-Yes 30 10 65 10 4.6 1.2 Chute Yes 39 9 4.1 1.2 No <br /> 17-No NA 28 NA 28 NA 1.2 Weir and chute NA NA NA NA NA <br /> 18 199,631 157,385 No No NA 39 NA 39 NA 1.2 Weir and chute Yes -North 103 8 None 1.2 Yes <br /> Yes-West 0 23 NA 1.2 Yes <br /> 20 320,145 67,494 No Yes 2 15 12 15 1.0 1.2 Weir and chute Yes-North 31 7 None 1.2 Yes <br /> Y - <br /> 21 89,235 66,551 No I Yes I NA 1 9 NA 9 NA 1.2 Weir and chute No NA NA NA NA NA <br /> 0 22 4,698 37,313 Yes Yes 0 11 NA 11 NA 1.2 Weir and chute No NA NA NA NA NA <br /> ECOSA toe berm 20,100 17,920'8) No("' No NA NA NA NA NA NA Nola' No NA NA NA NA NA <br /> Notes: <br /> 1. Red shading denotes structures that require upgrades. <br /> 2. Green shading denotes structures that do not require upgrades. <br /> 3. EMP 6:The existing spillway chute appears to lose containment near the outlet. Upgrades will be required regardless to extend the chute to the second, expanded EMP 6 pond.A second spillway design is included to discharge from the second EMP 6 pond to the environment. <br /> 4. EMP 8a:A new diversion channel (DC-EMP8a)was designed to EMP 8a that will divert part of the existing EMP 9a-d contributing area.The required volume accounts for the new diversion channel (DC-EMP8a). <br /> 5. EMP 8c:The required volume accounts for the reduced area due to the Squaw Gulch VLF 2 expansion. <br /> 6. EMP 9a-d:The required volume accounts for the reduced area due to the new diversion channel(DC-EMP8a)that will divert part of the existing EMP 9a-d contributing area to EMP 8a. Four(4)spillways designs are required. <br /> 7. EMP 11: Reclassified as a'non-EMP'structure, per CC&V.The as-built volume is sufficient to store the runoff volume from a single 10-year/24-hour storm event, as shown in the'Required Volume'column for this EMP. Upgrades(including spillway)and further analyses not required. <br /> 8. ECOSA toe berm:Not classified as an EMP.The as-built volume is sufficient to store the runoff volume from a single 10-year/24-hour storm event, as shown in the'Required Volume'column for this structure. Upgrades(including spillway)and further analyses not required. <br />