My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL55593
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL55593
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:40:35 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 10:36:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980004
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/31/1996
Doc Name
PROPOSED DECISION & FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE FOR RN4
Permit Index Doc Type
FINDINGS
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.
/
30
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
The segment of McClane Canyon affected by mine surface facilities extends <br />approximately 3000 feet from a box canyon at its upper end to its junction with East <br />Salt Creek. Five tributary drainages come together at the upper end of the canyon to <br />form the main ephemeral drainage. The mine portal facilities are located at this <br />location, and the tributary drainages were diverted via culverts beneath the mine bench <br />when the bench was constructed. The culverts are adequately sized for the design event <br />and have functioned well. A temporary diversion ditch to the south of the sediment <br />pond routes flow from three small ephemeral drainages around the pond, sediment <br />drying area, topsoil stockpile and riprap stockpile. Berms in the office facilities area <br />divert overland flow around the site. <br />Although not addressed th detail in the permit application, an additional diversion of the <br />McClane Canyon stream channel occurred when the access/haul road was constructed <br />in the spring of 1977. The point of diversion is between the riprap storage area and the <br />office area, where the road was constructed across the channel. Due to the placement <br />of road fill in the original channel, the flow in McClane drainage is now routed through <br />a small drainage which flows directly west to East Salt Creek for a distance of <br />approximately 600 feet, rather than to the southwest for approximately 800 feet as it <br />originally did. The diversion channel is approximately four to six feet deep and ten to <br />twelve feet wide at its upper end, underlain by sandstone bedrock, and similar in <br />dimension and appearance to the natwal McClane channel immediately above. Lower <br />segments of the channel have the appearance of a steep sided gully, deeply incised into <br />the colluvial/alluvial deposits, as is typical of ephemeral stream channels in the region. <br />There has apparently been no significant downcutting or associated slumping of gully <br />sides for many years, as there is a mature cover of big sagebrush and greasewood along <br />both edges of the gully for its entire length. <br />Upon final reclamation, all temporary diversion structures will be removed, and <br />ephemeral drainages will be reconstructed in their approximate original locations. The <br />road fill across the lower segment of McClane Drainage will be removed and the <br />approximate original channel configuration will be restored. <br />Diversion design is addressed in Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.4 of the application. Channel <br />reconstruction is discussed in Section 3.5 of the application. Applicable maps and tables <br />are referenced in the cited text sections. During the renewal review, the Division raised <br />concerns with respect to the diversion of the lower segment of the McClane channel, <br />fmal reclamation drainage configuration, and stabilization of reconstructed channel <br />segments. Most of the concerns were resolved during the course of the review, but <br />certain issues have not been fully resolved, and are addressed in the following <br />stipulations. <br />For certain reclaimed channels, insufficient information regarding design parameters was <br />provided, and concrete slabs were proposed to be used in certain instances to reinforce <br />the channel bottoms. The Division does not consider concrete slabs to be appropriate <br />for use in reclamation of permanent channels, where they would potentially be exposed <br />by concentrated flow, and where other materials more consistent with the surrounding <br />landscape would provide the necessary erosion protection. <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.