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 /> • EMP 16 <br /> — Existing spillway chute does not contain riprap; riprap design is required. <br /> — Existing inflow diversion channel capacity increase required. <br /> • EMP 17 <br /> — Spillway does not currently exist; a full spillway design is required. <br /> • EMP 17a <br /> — Existing spillway chute capacity and riprap increases required. <br /> — Existing inflow diversion channel does not contain riprap; riprap design required. <br /> • EMP 17b <br /> — Existing spillway chute capacity increase required. <br /> • EMP 18 <br /> — Spillway does not currently exist; a full spillway design is required. <br /> — North inflow diversion channel does not contain riprap; riprap design required. <br /> — West inflow diversion channel capacity and riprap increases required. <br /> • EMP 20 <br /> — Existing spillway inlet weir capacity, chute capacity and riprap increases required (i.e., full redesign). <br /> — North inflow diversion channel does not contain riprap; riprap design required. <br /> — South inflow diversion channel capacity and riprap increases required. <br /> • EMP 21 <br /> — Both existing spillways' (located in parallel) inlet weir capacity, chute capacity and riprap increases <br /> required (i.e., full redesigns). <br /> These designs were largely provided to CC&V in a separate FS-level design report document. We <br /> appreciate the opportunity to work with the CC&V team on this project. Please contact the undersigned if <br /> you have comments, questions, or require further information. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Knight Piesold and Co. <br /> yan ahl, P.E. aul W. Ridlen, P.E. <br /> ,�OfaCj <br /> Senior Water Resources Engineer President <br /> cc: CC&V: Katie Blake, Justin Bills, Ron Parratt <br /> Knight Piesold: Rowan Sauer, Thomas Jamieson-Lucy <br /> Enclosures <br /> Tables <br /> Table 2.1: Individual Curve Number Values <br /> Table 2.2: Existing Basin Composite Curve Number Values <br /> Table 2.3: Existing Diversion Channels and Spillways 100-year/24-hour Storm Event Peak Flows <br /> Table 2.4: Existing Diversion Channels 100-year/24-hour Storm Event Evaluation <br /> Table 2.5: Existing Spillway Inlet Weirs 100-year/24-hour Storm Event Evaluation <br /> Table 2.6: Existing Spillway Chutes 100-year/24-hour Storm Event Evaluation <br /> Table 2.7: Existing EMPs 2x 10-year/24-hour Storm Event Evaluation <br /> Table 2.8: Previous: Current Comparisons — Existing Contributing Basin Areas and Runoff Curve <br /> Numbers <br /> 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.