My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE111887
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE111887
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:08:20 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 8:58:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980001
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
MLRD - PRELIMINARY ADEQUACY REVIEW - EDNA MINE
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.
/
21
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 />ABOVE. THE REVISED TEXT (PAGE 4.3-5) TO INDICATE THAT A COVER CROP <br />IS USED IN-LIEU OF MULCH I5 ENCLOSED AND MAY BE SVBTITUTED DIRECTLY <br />INTO THE PERMIT FOR EXISTING PAGE 4.3-5. <br />D. For the inactive topsoil stockpiles on the Moffat Area, P&M should <br />construct containment ditches around the entire perimeter of the <br />stockpiles. These containment ditches would direct overland flow <br />away from the inactive stockpiles and keep the topsoil medium in <br />the stockpile area rather than eroding away. The discussion under <br />Section 4.3.4 should be revised to reflect a commitment to these <br />containment ditches. <br />A REVISED PAGE 4.3-8 IS ENCLOSED STATING THAT CONTAINMENT BERMS <br />WILL BE PLACED AT THE BASE OF ALL TOPSOIL STOCKPILES. THIS PAGE <br />MAY BE SUBSTITUTED DIRECTLY INTO THE PERMIT FOR EXISTING PAGE <br />4.3-8. <br />E. The discussion on page 9.3-8 pertaining to the active stockpiles on <br />West Ridge Area specifies "Acceptable erosion control practices <br />will be applied as necessary." P&M should e::pand upon this <br />statement to clarify the erosion control practices that will be <br />implemented. <br />• A REVISED PAGE 4.3-B IS ENCLOSED CLARIFYING THE EROSION CONTROL <br />PRACTICES TO BE IMPLEMENTED. THIS PAGE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED <br />DIRECTLY INTO THE PERMIT FOR EXISTING PAGE 4.3-8. <br />VI. Ponds, Impoundments and Diversions - 2.05.3(4) <br />A. A review of the design methodology and assumptions used in the <br />design of Pond 1 indicates that the pond may not be sufficiently, <br />sized to contain the design flows. Pittsburg and Midway should <br />review the following discussion prior to re-evluating the pond size <br />and design. <br />The description states Pond 1 will receive the outflows from Ponds 2B through <br />7B after they are constructed in year 3. Pond 1 was designed considering only <br />the contributing runoff from the area between Diversion Ditch No. 1 and the <br />inflow collection ditches to the pond during year Z. The runoff and sediment <br />generated from this area were modelled using Sedimot II. It was assumed that <br />the design condition would be year 2 and that the year 1 disturbed area would <br />be topsoiled, with contour furrows at 150 foot spacing, mulched and seeded <br />with a temporary cover for at least 60 days. The following two conditions <br />should be re-evaluated to determine the sizing requirements for Pond 1: <br />1. The sediment and runoff generated in the contributing areas <br />during year 1 of mining with spoil and when topsoil has been <br />removed (CP=1.0); and <br />• 2. The sediment and runoff routed to Pond 1 from Ponds 2B-7B at <br />their design condition (Appendix 4.6-B) added to the <br />contribution from the basin area below these ponds at year 3. <br />The larger of these two runoff and sediment storage requirement <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.