My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1989-12-18_REVISION - M1988112 (8)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1988112
>
1989-12-18_REVISION - M1988112 (8)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2021 9:13:33 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 6:07:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
12/18/1989
Doc Name
SAN LUIS PROJECT PERMIT AMENDMENT
From
MLRD
To
BATTLE MTN RESOURCES
Type & Sequence
AM1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
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 />38. Please describe the chemical composition of the water contained at the <br />collection pond and on the tailings surface. If the chemical analysis <br />indicates that these waters are toxic to waterfowl, Battle Mountain must <br />submit a plant to minimize waterfowl contact. In addition, a deer and <br />elk proof fence around the collection pond may be necessary, depending <br />upon the potential toxicity to wildlife, and to ensure liner protection. <br />Exhibit E, Reclamation Plan <br />39. It is apparent that detoxification and/or treatment of the tailings <br />material after deposition will be impossible. Therefore, any necessary <br />treatment of the tailings material must be accomplished prior to <br />deposition. In order to determine what, if any, treatment is necessary, <br />geochemical analysis of the material at the point of deposition must be <br />provided. <br />In order to judge whether treatment is necessary, a criteria for <br />evaluation must be established. Our analysis indicates that any seepage <br />or flaw form the facility would most likely infiltrate into the <br />colluvial material a short distance from the disposal facility. <br />Therefore, the adopted groundwater standards are applicable to the <br />effluent from the facility. Battle Mountain must demonstrate that <br />impacts to the hydrologic balance are minimized after reclamation is <br />complete. A predictive model of the effluent, given post reclamation <br />conditions and the geochemical characteristics of the tailings, should <br />be submitted. If the model suggests treatment of the tailings prior to <br />deposition is necessary, a plan to do so should also be submitted. <br />40. The final topography on the tailings surface is described as being <br />created by selective deposition at the end of operations such that only <br />minor grading is expected prior to topsoil placement and revegetation. <br />It is noted in Appendix L (Spillway Design Calculations) that ".... the <br />reclamation plan may spigot clean material and seed, rather than using <br />earth movers to grade the surface." Please clarify the method proposed <br />for topsoil distribution and seeding on the tailings surface. <br />41. In order to encourage drainage form the reclaimed surface of the <br />facility, a grade in excess of 0.5% should be created. We recommend that <br />a 1.5% grade be established. This grade would facilitate the removal of <br />water from the surface of the facility in a non-erosive manner, while <br />minimizing the potential for ponding and infiltration to occur. <br />-5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.