My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-05-05_REVISION - M2000049
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M2000049
>
2008-05-05_REVISION - M2000049
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 3:01:39 PM
Creation date
5/5/2008 1:41:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2000049
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/5/2008
Doc Name
Adequacy Review
From
J. E. Stover & Associates, Inc.
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM2
Email Name
KAP
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.
/
16
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
Kate Pickford -2- May 1, 2008 <br />7. The following language was added to amended page D-3, Mining experience <br />has shown that any perennial ground water encountered lies on a clay layer, which <br />apparently underlies the entire pit. Agravel/clay mix that cannot be piacessed by the <br />Operator lies approximately 24"above this solid clay layer. When this gravel/clay mix <br />is encountered, mining ceases at that level. This senses as a self limiting factor that <br />has remained constant since mining began, and leaves at least 2'of undisturbed <br />material above the perennial water table. Test holes are periodically excavated to <br />confirm the lateral continuity of the clay layerand the gravel/clay layermix. <br />8. The Marilyn Allen and San Miguel Power damage waiver agreement are part <br />of the approved mining permit. Copies are enclosed. <br />9. The stability analysis I provided for the Bray and Ruhsing headgate <br />demonstrates a worst case pit slope of 4.2H:1V. My understanding from <br />working with Steve Shuey on a similar issue is that the DRMS generally <br />considers a 3H:1 V slope to be stable and thus a geotechnical evaluation <br />should not be required. <br />Two copies of amended pages D-1, D-2, D-3, E-2 & G-1 are enclosed along with the <br />items referenced in numbers 1, 2, 3 & 8. Please call if you have any questions. <br />Sincerely, <br />~f <br />J. E. Stover, P.E. <br />Consulting Engineer <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.