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 /> <br />42. No post-mine channels have been proposed for the top of the reclaimed <br />tailings other than those resulting from final deposition as shown on <br />Figure F-3. Flow paths will approximate the pre-mining condition as <br />noted. A significant reduction in channel slope will occur between pre- <br />and post-mine conditions. Although the reduction in slope will tend to <br />reduce the potential for erosion, it will not alleviate the potential as <br />stated on page E-6. The broad flow zones (channels) created on the <br />tailings surface and shallow slopes will result in low velocities during <br />flood conditions. However, during smaller runoff events, channelized <br />flow from upstream areas may tend to cut a channel thru the Topsoil which <br />has been respread on the tailings. It may be advisable to direct this <br />flow in a constructed low-flow trickle channel rather than allow the <br />topsoil to be eroded away in finding its preferred path. Please address <br />the stability of these channels and any channel bottom treatment required <br />for low-flow conditions. <br />43. The spillway design calculations are provided in Appendix L. A velocity <br />of 10.5 fps results in the channel below the concrete control section for <br />the PMF flow event. A smaller channel for the 100-year, 24-trour event is <br />also proposed and shown on Figure F-3. The 100-year channel is proposed <br />to be riprapped while the PMF channel is proposed to be revegetated. No <br />stability calculations or construction specifications were provided. <br />Please provide the following: <br />A cross-section of the final spillway channel, <br />Riprap size based an stability calculations, <br />Riprap and bedding specifications, <br />Velocity in the revegetated section of channel, <br />Revegetation specifications if different from general <br />specifications. <br />44. The collection pond is proposed to be filled with riprap to act as <br />an energy dissipation structure for the engineered spillway upon <br />reclamation. What size riprap and thickness of riprap will be used? <br />What depth of overburden, if any, will be placed over the folded-in <br />liner? What size and thickness of riprap bedding material is proposed? <br />45. Has consideration been given to grouted riprap versus the concrete <br />proposed for the spillway entrance and control section? This may alter <br />the hydraulics somewhat but may improve the post-mine appearance upon <br />reel amati on . <br />46. Please provide a description of the reclamation to be performed at <br />Waste Rock Disposal Area D. The upper surface of each waste rock <br />disposal area should be graded to encourage drainage in a controlled <br />manner. <br />-6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.