My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-10-19_REVISION - M1980244
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2018-10-19_REVISION - M1980244
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/4/2025 6:18:05 AM
Creation date
10/19/2018 4:32:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/19/2018
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
CC&V
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR101
Email Name
TC1
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.
/
69
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
Knight Piesold <br /> CONSULTING <br /> Environmental Department, Meg Burt, Senior Manager October 8, 2018 <br /> Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mining Co. (Newmont) <br /> - Reservoir surface area at"high-water line"greater than 20 acres(ac) <br /> - Dam height"measured vertically from the elevation of the lowest point of the natural surface of the <br /> ground where that point occurs along the longitudinal centerline of the dam up to the crest of the <br /> emergency spillway of the dam"greater than 10 feet <br /> • Rule 4.2.5.2, "Non jurisdictional Size Dam" <br /> - Reservoir capacity less than or equal to 100 ac-ft <br /> - Reservoir surface area at"high-water line" less than or equal to 20 ac <br /> - Dam height less than or equal to 10 feet <br /> Based on the pre-mine development and as-built EMP topography contours provided by CC&V, Table 2.10 <br /> summarizes the Jurisdictional Dam status for each EMP. The results indicate that eleven of the EMPs are <br /> non-Jurisdictional Dams and six are currently estimated to be Jurisdictional Dams. The six Jurisdictional <br /> Dams are classified as such based on dam height alone; the reservoir capacities and "high-water line" <br /> surface areas are within the non-Jurisdictional Dam criteria. <br /> The upgraded designs produced by Knight Piesold include lowering the spillway inlet invert elevations for <br /> the EMPs that are currently classified as Jurisdictional Dams. Once the upgrades are constructed, these <br /> EMPs will become non-Jurisdictional Dams. <br /> 2.5.3 Comparisons to Previous Estimates <br /> This section presents comparisons of key parameters between estimates made by Steffens and Knight <br /> Piesold. Information from the Steffens (2012) document is compared to the information presented by <br /> Knight Piesold herein. <br /> The Steffens (2012) design report used a 10-year/24-hour (10-yr/24-hr) storm event with a depth of <br /> 2.7 inches, and a 100-yr/24-hr storm event of 3.5 inches. The storm events used in the Steffens report <br /> were sourced from the NOAA Atlas 2 Volume 3, which was last revised in 1973. More recent analyses <br /> have been performed in the NOAA Atlas 14 Volume 8, which supersedes the NOAA Atlas 2 Volume 3. <br /> NOAA Atlas 14 Volume 8 used increased data quality control and a longer period of record and reported <br /> a 10-yr/24-hr storm event depth of 2.4 inches and a 100-yr/24-hr storm event depth of 4.1 inches for the <br /> Cripple Creek station near the mine site. Knight Piesold was able to independently corroborate the storm <br /> depths using the records from the Cripple Creek Station, as well as with data from the on-site weather <br /> stations. <br /> Comparisons of contributing basin areas and runoff CNs are presented in Table 2.8. There are some <br /> significant discrepancies in the basin areas to the EMPs. The following potential justifications were made, <br /> which were largely confirmed by CC&V: <br /> • EMP 8a: Knight Piesold estimated a smaller area because the previous inflow diversion channel that <br /> Steffens considered was removed. <br /> • EMPs 9a-d (combined): Knight Piesold estimated a larger area because a new inflow diversion channel <br /> was constructed that Steffens did not consider. <br /> • EMP 13: Knight Piesold estimated a larger area because Steffens did not include the area up-gradient <br /> of the road within the catchment. <br /> • EMPs 16, 17, and 20: Knight Piesold estimated smaller areas because Steffens included the ECOSA <br /> waste rock area to these EMPs. CC&V directed Knight Piesold to assume runoff from the waste rock <br /> area will be detained by the toe berm. To this end, Knight Piesold estimated the required size (volume) <br /> of the toe berm herein. <br /> • EMP 21: Knight Piesold estimated a smaller area but a robust justification for the larger Steffens area <br /> could not be found. This could be simply due to differences in topography. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.