My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11485
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11485
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:52 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:20:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1994082
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
1/19/1995
Doc Name
YOAST MINE C-94-082 APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTS
From
DMG
To
SUSAN BURGMAIER
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.
/
3
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
<br /> <br />cause slope failure problems at the head of this drainage. <br />• Mining in the southern part of the area could affect stability of the existing <br />active landslide complex above the road adjacent to Sage Creek in section 19, <br />as well as affect future topsoil stock pile locations. There are several other <br />landslide deposits which could affect or be affected by mining in this southern <br />pit area as well. <br />Tab 13 Facilities <br />' There appear to be conflicting opinions of sediment pond cut off ability and <br />construction parameters which need to be clarified/resolved. Attachment 13-5, page <br />7 warns of shallow groundwater, soft, deformable soils, deep bedrock, and potential <br />unacceptable seepage rates that may require a special design involving a clay liner. <br />It further states that dewatering measures may be necessary during and after <br />construction is completed. Attachment 13-7, page 9, indicates no unusual conditions <br />in the pond 010 embankment area. What actually is the case here? What is the <br />likely hood of unacceptably high seepage around/under the embankment? The clay <br />liner possibility, potential high groundwater, and construction difficulties are not <br />discussed in attachment 13-3, "Preliminary Construction Plan". If a clay liner or <br />dewatering effort is indeed required, it is better to incorporate these into the <br />proposed design prior to construction, than to have to return later and re-do the <br />pond because it leaks too badly. <br />' The road proposed from the 1999 pit down to pond 011 will be constructed through <br />an area of landslide/mudflow deposits, some of which appear relatively young. What <br />is the potential for renewed instability in this drainage as mining and road <br />construction disturb the head of i[? Why couldn't pond 011 be accessed from Grassy <br />Creek? <br />' Stabilities and factors of safety calculated for haul roads assume there will be no <br />seepage encountered in the cuts or beneath fills. Test holes were drilled in October <br />1993, a very dry period. Attachment 13-5 warns that the risk of slope instability will <br />be "significantly increased" if seepage is encountered. What data exists to determine <br />the potential for seepage to occur in haul road cuts during wet seasons and spring <br />runoff? I am concerned that there is a real potential for some groundwater to occur <br />in the haul road cuts, at feast during certain times of the year. What factors of safety <br />will result from the assumption that some groundwater can be expected at certain <br />times of year? What additional measures may be required to stabilize cuts and fills <br />if groundwater is present? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.