My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE127759
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
300000
>
PERMFILE127759
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:24:53 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 5:13:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1984062
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
2.05 OPERATION & RECLAMATION PLAN PG 1 TO 89
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.
/
99
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
confluence of Foidel and Middle GYeeks. Site 703 showed a Total Susperrled Solids <br />• (TSS) oorx:entration of 126 mg/1 aryl a Settleable Solids concentration of <0.2 <br />mg/1. Site 704 showed a TSS concentration of 58 mg/1 and an SS concentration of <br /><0.2 mg/1, indicating that runoff frwn the area is not contributing excessive <br />curlimant t0 the Stream Sy6ten. <br />Sites 705 arci 706 are upstream aryl downstream of SAE #8 respectively, and lie <br />below the confluence of Foidel arcs Middle CYeeks. Site 705 showed a TSS <br />concentration of 38 mq/1 arcl an SS concentration of <0.2 mg/1. Site 706 showed <br />a TSS wnoentration of 44 mg/1 and an SS concentration of <0.2 mg/1. While these <br />data indicate a possible increase which might be attributed to the SAE in <br />question. CYOC contends that this purported increase falls within the expected <br />range of variance experienced during collection of samples. While every effort <br />is made to collect samples order oorclitions which are as identical as possible, <br />some degree of fluctuation between samples must be expected. Secondly, even if <br />this increase could be attributed to the small area exertion (which show no sign <br />of the degree of erosion which would be required to cause such an increase) the <br />TSS concentrations are still under any applicable effluent limits. lastly, in <br />• light of the vegetative Dover and degree of negative drainage present on this <br />parcel, any sc13i~*+t yield which might be attributed to this parcel would be <br />negligible in light of the yield from the upstream watershed. As such, CYCC <br />feels that the cui^rent vegetative filters and other moac~,rac previously addressed <br />are sufficient. <br />SAE's #3 and #6 -Homestead Ditch Exemptions; <br />Grab samples labelled HD#1 and HD#2 were collec,-ted on two separate dates. Samples <br />HD#1 were collected below the headgate of the Homestead Ditch immediately prior <br />to where the ditch enters the permit boundary. Samples HD#2 were collected below <br />the parcels in question; these being SAE #6, and the second parcel, SAE #3 down <br />stream that utilizes vegetative cover for sediment control. The first set of <br />sables were collected on 7/29/91, and are representative of irrigation flows <br />within the Homestead Irrigation Ditch. This set of samples showed no significant <br />difference in values, and were in fact nearly identical. These samples showed no <br />impacts that might be related to sediment loading from deposition in the channel <br />during periods of no irrigation flow. <br />~J <br />MR 92-16 2.05-21 (b) Revised 11/04/92 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.