My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE28072
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE28072
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:35:29 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:49:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977210
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/20/1990
Doc Name
FAX COVER-HRG
From
CASTLE CONCRETE CO
To
MLRB
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.
/
10
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 />culvert would be the mosC expensive option at the HR-6 outfall <br />point, the quarry operator would not have to construct the <br />roadside swales to handle dzverted runoff, and the operator would <br />have a decreased liability Eor runoff and sedimentation damage at <br />the 94/30-inch culvert resulting fro the diversion of flog from <br />ies historic path. stabiliaatiof the of the natural Swale <br />downstream o£ HR-6 should be the responsibility of the Cedar <br />Heights property owners, as well as the construction of a <br />culvertta) under Cedar Heights Drive. It is reCOmmenfled that a <br />100-year culvert be conatruated under Cedar Heights Drive at the <br />location of proposed culvert "A" ao as to prevent an overflow at <br />this location, however the ei~e of this culvert would be up t <br />the Cedar Heights property owners. Stabilization of the ~natur <br />Swale can be achieved by the construction of timber checks spec <br />pF!ri~)fitr.;lly along the length of the Swale. The size of t;he 1~. <br />y.~nr metal pipe rulvnrt. under the quarry access road is es~timete <br />at betwe.en•.36- an!i..42,-inches .ZSSUming a headwater to depth ratLu <br />of at least 1.5. <br />Option 7: This option is not leasible based upon the review of <br />the topography of the area. Additionally, Chia option is a plan <br />whir_h would result in the diversion of flow from historic path <br />which is not recommended. <br />conclusions <br />As a result of our review of the information relevant to this <br />project, the following conclusions have been reached: <br />'T cl) The flow originating from the HR-6 basin is considered to be <br />"historic" in nature and should remain in the natural awale <br />through the Cedar Heights property. <br />t21 options which consifler the diversion of !lows from the <br />historic, path should be avoided because of the potential !or <br />damagr:s resulting from drainage and erosion along the access <br />road, <br />l3).: $t b~,la.?ation of tho natural Swale should be considered by <br />£he Ce ar t~'e~g~i'r8 property owners. The installation of <br />stabilization structures should be phased as the natural swala is <br />impacted over time by the historic runoff from the HR-6 basin. <br />c41 The operator of the quarry should be responsible for <br />removing the existing loose sediments upstream of the access <br />read and stabilizing these same areas so that sediment <br />available for transport to ~.he natural awale is minimized. The <br />stabilization of disturbed areas along the quarry ar..cesa road <br />including the safety berm along the east aide of the access road <br />should be the responsibility of the quarry operator. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.