PERMFILE57973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~ the old county road right of way, and (2) hrau•gh~ t (Plate I ). This water would be released of poi ,Q ~~ ~ ~~ ~, • downstream from the train 7eadout area (TLA). p g - Tvro alternatives are proposed for handling thd'~ generated from the approximately 15 acres occuppied by the TLA. Alternative I would utilize a sedimentation pond; whereas Alternative II would efficiently use existing, drainage patterns and also utilize the extensive buffer areas occupied by orchards to filter out sediment and absorb much of the runoff. Alternative I. Under Alternative I (Plate I ), runoff from point B would remain in a conduit throughout its entire length upstream from Farmer's Ditch. It would exit the conduit at points H or I, depending on where the sedimentation pond were located. As shown in Plate I this pond could be located up- stream from Farmers Ditch, or bele~+r it. Required storage capacity for this pond would be approximately 1.3 acre-feet. If the pond were located upstream from the canal, water in excess of the 10-year, 24-hour event would exit the structure through I the spillvray and outlet structure. A crossing vrould be necessary to direct flo~+ discharged from the outlet pipe across the top of Farmer's Ditch. Runoff entering the project area from point B would flow through a conduit located beneath the pond. This water would be discharged from beneath Farmer's Ditch as presently is the case. If the pond were located downstream, from Farmer's Ditch, d Crossing would be provided for stormflow generated from the project area. Drainage from area E would be directed away from farmer's Ditch and discharged in the orchard area as shown in Plate I. Alternative II. Alternative II appears to be the simplest and most economical solution for disposing of storm runoff since it utilizes ezistingdrainage patterns and also makes use of the extensive orchard buffer area southeast from the railroad load- out (Plate II).