My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV15251
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV15251
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:26:32 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:02:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977193
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/22/1996
Doc Name
TEZAK HEAVY EQUIPMENT CO INC AS TR TO PN M-77-193 AMENDMENT
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
TR3
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.
/
3
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 />Mr. Tan Schreiner -2- Jan. 19, :L996 <br />I. (B) Pond #4, adjacent to Tunnel Drive, is to hold an <br />acre foot of water, which is to be percolated into <br />the ground. Pond #4 is to have an emergency spill- <br />way located at the west. end of the pond. (The <br />adequacy of the design is contradicted by the need <br />for a spillway.) <br />1. What is the rationale for locating the <br />spillway at the west end of the pond? <br />Where would the watex then flow? <br />2. Would not this large amount of water to <br />be held in pond #4, percolating into the <br />ground, jeopardize the water main running <br />under Tunnel Drive, the water supply to <br />the fire hydrant nearby and the street <br />itself? <br />(C) It is unclear how the new plans will direct the water flow <br />either north-east or south from the quarry area and <br />approximately what per cent of a major storm would go <br />each direction. <br />According to Mr. Klco's calculations (report of Dec. 8, page 1, under <br />Design of Site Stonrnaater Controls), "The four sediment ponds currently <br />planned will total five acre feet of storage, approximately 148 of a 100- <br />year storm potential." (Old Plan). <br />In the Jan. 6 letter, page 2, #2, he says "#4 sediment pond wi1.L ho]rl <br />a minimum one acre foot of storage and will intercept all storm watP_ not <br />diverted at sed anent pond #1 and all areas not in the influence of t)ie <br />diversion to the north. This is estimated to be less than 58 of the original <br />watershed storm volume potential. Sediment ponds #2, #3, and #4, at a <br />minimum of 2 acre feet of storage, should be of sufficient storage to retain <br />that portion of the storm discharge from the site not handled by the diversion." <br />When one compares information from the two paragraphs above: <br />iO1d Plan) 5 acre feet of storage = 148 of 10)-yr. stone potentie~2. <br />(New Plan) <br />Pond #4 1 acre foot of storage = 38 of 100-yr. stone potent~.al <br />Ponds #2 & #3 <br /> 4 acre feet of storage = 118 of 100-yr. storm potential <br />New Plan Total 5 acre feet 148 of 100-yr. stone potential <br />II. (A) Mr. Klco's most recent Technical Revision shwas <br />water from the upper part. of the mine flowing east <br />into Sand Gulch. At present Sand Gulch receives <br />water from a large watershed area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.