My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR13404
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
3000
>
APPCOR13404
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:33:40 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:41:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
11/5/1996
Doc Name
ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL STUDY EVALUATION OF THE STABILITY OF THE RECLAIMED SLOPES BOWIE 2 MINE BOWIE
From
DMG
To
DAVE BERRY
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.
/
8
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 />Memo to Dave Berry <br />Bowie No. 2 Additional Geotech Study <br />page 2 <br /> <br />It does not, however, provide significant information regarding the reclamation <br />of specific cuts and fill benches at the site. Further, it is limited by its <br />analytical assumptions. <br />As I stated in my earlier adequacy comments, the Division cannot approve any <br />mine permit until the applicant has demonstrated that the mine site <br />disturbances can be successfully reclaimed. Unravelling, meta-stable <br />backfilled slopes do not represent successful reclamation and will not be <br />judged by the Division as meeting the required mandate to return the mine site <br />to a beneficial use. My initial geotechnical adequacy comments generally <br />expressed my concern that insufficient geotechnical information had been <br />provided within the application to demonstrate that the site could be reclaimed <br />in a stable configuration. The original Maxim Technologies study, while it <br />presented considerable viable geotechnical information, did not solve this basic <br />inadequacy. This supplemental study, while it provides additional useful <br />information, leaves many of my earlier geotechnical concerns regarding the <br />earlier analysis unaddressed. <br />Specific Comments <br />Page 1; "Site and Subsurface Conditions" <br />This additional study addresses the backfilling of cuts similar to that of <br />the two highest benches. It generally assumes cut slopes of 2h:1 v in <br />original predisturbance slopes of 3h:1 v. This appears appropriate for the <br />two cuts analyzed. It does not appear to be an appropriate assumption for <br />many other cuts which will be generated by the proposed construction at <br />the site. For instance, the numerous switchback tight-radius turns <br />necessary to accommodate the proposed access road will probably result <br />in the excavation of high cut slopes with facial slopes steeper than 2h:1 v <br />in areas with predisturbance slopes of greater than 3h:1 v. The application <br />will have to specifically project the operational and reclaimed slopes to <br />be constructed and reclaimed before we can judge the propriety of these <br />modeled assumptions. For steeper reclaimed slopes it will be necessary <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.