My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-08-21_REVISION - M1980244 (32)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2012-08-21_REVISION - M1980244 (32)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:05:39 PM
Creation date
8/27/2012 11:12:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
8/21/2012
Doc Name
APPLICATION RESPONSE TO ADEQUACY REVIEW
From
CC&V
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM10
Email Name
TC1
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.
/
144
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
C. Related to Comment 12, the Division's review of the Phase 1 and 2 sediment ponds for the SGVLF <br />(reference Drawings A505 and A520), and storm water management plan sediment pond designs <br />(reference Appendix 12, Volume VI, Drawing Nos. CCV 10 -SA4, -SAS; specifically EMT -8a, -09, -16, <br />-17M, -18, -20 and -21) appear to exceed the 10 -foot height limit for non jurisdictional dams. Please <br />substantiate why these ponds are non jurisdictional or commit to getting dam construction permits from <br />the OSE for each jurisdictional dam. <br />RESPONSE: AMEC is re- configuring the layout /design of the Phase I and Phase 2 sediment ponds to meet <br />the non jurisdictional criteria, and will be included in the final construction drawings. The final <br />configuration of these ponds will be submitted to the Division for review, and included in the final As -built <br />reports. CC &V and AMEC has also reviewed the storm water control structures associated with the High <br />Grade Mill Platform since submittal of the application and provides herein improved storm water <br />management control structures for the High Grade Mill Platform area within Attachment 10. <br />d. The Division's review of the Phase 1 and 2 sediment ponds for the SGVLF (reference Drawings A505 <br />and A520), and EMP -8a (reference Appendix 12, Volume VI, Drawing No. CCV10 -SA5) indicate <br />these ponds have no spillways. Even if they are "zero- discharge" ponds, a spillway is required to pass <br />the peak flow resulting from the 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Please provide spillway designs <br />certified by a licensed professional engineer for these ponds. <br />RESPONSE: AMEC is re- configuring the layout/design of the Phase I and Phase 2 sediment ponds to <br />include a spillway that will safely pass the 100 year, 24 -hour storm event, and will be included in the final <br />construction drawings. The final configuration of these ponds will be submitted to the Division for review, <br />and included in the final As -built reports. <br />e. The Division's review of the SGVLF Phase 1 diversion channel (reference Drawings A505 and A520) <br />indicate there is no designed conveyance for over 200 feet between the pond and sta. 0 +00 of the <br />channel. Please explain the lack of designed conveyance. (Note: the proposed diversion channel <br />would be expected to bring much higher flows to this reach than what the reach has been exposed to <br />prior to receiving flows from the diversion channel). <br />RESPONSE. The Phase I channel utilizes an existing railroad cut in the existing topography to convey the <br />channel over the first 200 feet into the pond to drain into the proposed sediment pond. The contractor may <br />need to do some additional reshaping of the existing railroad cut during construction to improve the flow into <br />the pond, and will be shown in the as -built report. <br />f. North arrows are useful in orienting drawings. Please resubmit all six drawings in Appendix 12, <br />Volume VI with north arrows for each plan view. <br />RESPONSE. North arrows have been added to all six drawings in Appendix 12, Volume VI and are <br />submitted herein Attachment 11. <br />48. Page 10 -5, last paragraph — Hay bales attract large game animals such as deer and elk, which eat the hay and <br />destroy the BMP. Please confirm the use of "hay" in the last paragraph is a typographic error and that straw <br />will be the only material used in bales for this project. <br />RESPONSE: This is a point well taken, however, based on experience by professional Environmental <br />Resources Staff at CC &V, "straw" bales too attract large game animals such as deer and ells which then can <br />destroy the BMP. CC &V will however, commit to use "straw" bales utilized for BMPs. <br />49. Page 11 -1. Surface water monitoring — Poverty Gulch is not mentioned in this section. Please provide a <br />discussion on surface water monitoring in Poverty Gulch. <br />RESPONSE: As presented in more detail in Section 5.1.3 Appendix 2 of Volume II of the Application, there <br />are no surface water resources in Poverty Gulch and that is why, there is no mention of surface water <br />monitoring in Poverty Gulch on Page 11 -1 of Project Description. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.