My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE21130
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE21130
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:31:21 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:55:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977210
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
10/27/1989
Doc Name
HYDROLOGIC ADEQUACY REVIEW CORRECTIVE ACTIVE PLAN FOR SNYDER QUARRY ACCESS ROAD CASTLE CONCRETE
From
MLRD
To
DAN HERNANDEZ
Violation No.
MV1989015
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.
/
7
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 /> <br />Memo to Dan Hernandez - 4 - October 27, 1989 <br />Cedar Heights Lenders (October 19, 1989) <br />4. Culvert HR-6. The statement is made that the outflow from a culvert at <br />t~fi s Toc~`on will erode the ditch along Cedar Heights Drive. It is <br />difficult to verify if erosion will occur without knowing the channel <br />bottom conditions (vegetation, bare soil or rock, particle size) and <br />expected velocity at design flow. Adequacy questions relative to HR-6 <br />were addressed in my Comment No. 7. <br />5. See a e Collars. This comment points out that Culvert HR-3 may need a <br />cu to co ar ecause it is greater than 100 feet long. This is a valid <br />concern. I have addressed this same concern in my Comment No. 7. <br />7. Culvert Exits. Inadequate protection at exits, especially Area 4, is <br />no~TBis is a valid concern. I have addressed this in Comment No. 4 <br />8. Rip-Rap Channel. Stated that riprap is needed at edge of Area 1 to <br />protect e~new channel from erosion. Upon regrading the slide body it <br />would appear the natural channel would be reconstructed. This would be a <br />valid concern if the filling of the sediment deposition area upstream of <br />the Area 1 slide, and any fill (slide material) is placed in the channel <br />itself. This placement of fill would raise the stream base level and <br />probably cause subsequent erosion through this fill. A channel design <br />(cross-section size and shape, maximum velocity at design conditions, <br />channel bottom particle size) should be defined. <br />9. Desiltation Pond. Comment "a" notes the location of the pond proposed <br />expan s t e permit area. This comment may be valid. The proposed <br />location is in a previously-disturbed area referred to as the "Old Scale <br />Site". The area seems to be suitable for locating the pond. The only <br />other possible area would be above the road near Culvert HR-1. This may <br />not provide sufficient area needed and may require diversions to bring <br />all disturbed area runoff into the pond. <br />Comment "b" on no plans submitted for the pond is valid. The conceptual <br />plan to include a siltation structure has merit and requires that more <br />detailed information be submitted, as referenced in my comments on water <br />qual i ty. <br />Mansfield Development (October 25, 1989) <br />The comments provided relative to hydrology are that inclusion of the <br />desiltation pond will result in a permit boundary increase. This is continued <br />by the statement that the Division should consider more detailed plans in the <br />topographically complex area so that drainage conditions can be planned for <br />prior to initiation of mining in the Amendment area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.