My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV91639
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV91639
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:13:09 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:13:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981048
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
12/19/1980
Doc Name
REVIEW OF TBM SEDIMENT CONROL
From
MLR
To
MIKE SAVAGE
Type & Sequence
HR1
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.
/
4
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
~~~~~n~ir~n lulu, Yi~YVII~~fIV Y~YI ~ ~I~ <br />Page 3 <br />Mike Savage <br />December 19, 1980 <br />The applicant should be aware that haul road culverts must be designed to <br />pass a 10 year 2-0 hour storm without a head of water at the inlet. If a head <br />is needed then the embankment must be protected from erosion and fill saturation. <br />This is usually accomplished by a rock or concrete head wall. Specifications <br />on design headwater and headwall protection methods, must be supplied for our <br />review. <br />7 checked the desiyn of Culvert C-1 making some assumptions to get an idea <br />of how well your designs are. If Z assume that culvert C-1 is ChfP, inlet <br />controlled, and projecting, the design IIW = G feet. This would mean that the <br />design headwater would be 12 feet, D with these assumptions it appears <br />that culverts were designed with no consideration of the design headwater. <br />It appears that most if not all culverts, are underdesigned and will have to <br />be redesigned properly to get our approval. <br />Ditch Designs <br />Peak dischrage calculations for ditches 22-D1, 22-D2, 22-D3, and the Pit Nl <br />collection ditch are incorrect because the equivalent area compensation factor <br />was not considered. This is the same problem Chat was noted in my December 5, <br />1980 memo explained in comment N7. Revised peak dischrage calculations must <br />6e submitted. <br />These ditch designs should also include information on the size and type of <br />rock used to Line the ditches. Also, it should be indicated whether this <br />rock will line the entire stretch of the ditches. If rock will not line the <br />entire ditch then the applicant must indicate what the Lining will be (type <br />of vegetation, type of soil, etc.). <br />Pond Designs <br />Peak discharge calculations are incorrect for pond sizing. Revised peak <br />discharges and pond storage designs must be submitted. (See comments k7 and <br />b8 of my December 5, 1980 memo to Mike Savage). Emergency spillways will also <br />have to be redesigned. Ponds with embankments greater than 10 feet (from the <br />toe of stream to the crest of the emergency spillway)must be approved by the <br />State Engineer's office. We will need documentation that this was done. <br />IF TBM wants approval of manually operated pond dewatering devises, they <br />must explain how tl~c 3" plastic pipe will be opened when mining is completed <br />and personnel are not present at the mine site. This type of dewatering device <br />requires continual maintenance to open the pipe after storms and is subject to <br />clogging with sediment. TBM must either submit a plan for continual maintenance <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.