My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-11-09_REVISION - M2010049 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M2010049
>
2012-11-09_REVISION - M2010049 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 6:05:30 PM
Creation date
11/9/2012 12:46:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2010049
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/9/2012
Doc Name
Submittal
From
Varra Companies
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR2
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.
/
43
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
Western Sugar Reclamation Land Development Project <br />Flood Analysis <br />typical of large storm events. With such an occurrence, it is likely that flood threats would be <br />issued well in advance of flows that have the potential to flood the Site. <br />Once flood threats are issued, Varra Companies, Inc. will shut down dewatering pumps for Tract <br />C allowing the pit to fill. Even with no flood inflow, the pit would fill in approximately 3.5 days <br />due to groundwater inflow. And once the pit is full, headcutting and erosion would not occur <br />because of minimal water surface elevation difference between the floodplain and the pit - <br />eventually the two will be equal. <br />VII. TRACT D <br />Per the September 21, 2012 meeting between Varra Companies, Inc and DRMS, it was agreed <br />that due to the relatively small volume of Tract D, it would fill prior to possibility of headcutting <br />back to the river. The WinDAM B model results for Tract C berm width also apply to Tract D, <br />and being that those results indicate that headcutting from a 100 -ft berm is unlikely for Tract C, <br />it would be unlikely for Tract D also — especially considering a much shorter fill time for Tract <br />D. <br />VIII. FLOOD RECESSION BACK INTO THE RIVER AND BANK EROSION <br />Headcutting and bank erosion as the flood recedes is not a concern. This includes flows from the <br />dewatering ditch that runs between Tracts C and D. As the flood recedes, the river and floodplain <br />water surface elevations will decrease at the same rate because they are essentially a "pool." <br />Thus, an elevation gradient will not exist between the floodplain and river which would be <br />necessary for headcutting and bank erosion. <br />IX. HARD AMORING AS AN EXTRA LEVEL OF PROTECTION AGAINST <br />CAPTURING THE RIVER <br />Analyses such as above can not conclusively predict that the pit will erode back to the river. — it <br />is impossible to truly predict natural events occurring in nature. However, the results do add a <br />high degree of confidence that headcutting will not occur back to the river and thereby capture <br />it. <br />Because of uncertainties, an extra level of protection will be added to the Site post mining as <br />agreed upon during the 9/21/2012 meeting between Varra Companies, Inc and DRMS. That <br />protection will include lining a section of Tract C between the pit rim and river with overtopping <br />protection (as would be done for an embankment dam) at the breakaway section between Oglivy <br />Ditch Diversion Dam and Ash Avenue. Such protection will extend from the pit rim to the <br />normal high water mark of the pit reservoir. Overbank hard armoring protection will be <br />discussed in detail in a separate document provided by Varra Companies, Inc. <br />Also, hard armoring protection will be placed around the gas battery in the northeast corner of <br />Tract C. This design will be discussed in detail in another document provided by Varra <br />Companies, Inc. <br />p9. 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.