Laserfiche WebLink
II. <br />capture. Likewise, we proposed to provide a protected means for which floodwaters could <br />move from Tract C to Tract D, and also protect the oil/gas pipes within the embankment <br />between the two tracts. In revisiting this issue, it was determined by ourselves and our <br />consultant, Mr. Trieste, that the points we have protected should prevent embankment erosion <br />and river capture. Likewise, the pipelines between Tract C and Tract D should also be <br />protected from bank erosion and failure. The introduction of floodwaters to this site should <br />not affect the tank battery as a result of our mining activities. The tank battery owner has <br />already constructed what they feel should be adequate surface protections for their facilities in <br />the event of a flood, and Varra Companies mining activities will not have an effect on these <br />surface protections. Additionally, velocities in the area of the tank battery should be minimal, <br />as the entry point for the floodwater is on the western side of Tract C and the tank battery is <br />on the eastern side of Tract C. The inclusion of the comment regarding the armoring of the <br />tank battery in the Flood Analysis report was a miscommunication on our end between <br />ourselves and our consultant, and was again misinterpreted by Varra Companies in our <br />proofing of the report to mean the design of the riprap protected weir between Tract C and <br />Tract D as we have now designed. Please see the included photos of the current state of the <br />existing tank battery. Also, please see our Statement of Understanding addressed to Adjacent <br />Surface Owner of Record, dated Thursday, July 29, 2010, which was part of the original <br />application for the Western Sugar project. This document outlines the expectations of our <br />coexistence with adjacent surface owners. This document was sent to all adjacent surface <br />owners by certified return receipt mail, and these were also submitted with our original <br />application for Western Sugar. <br />The following comments are from Tim Cazier, and our responses are likewise denoted in bold <br />italics: <br />1. The Flood Analysis appears adequate. No action required. Noted. <br />2. The riprap sizing analysis appears adequate. No action required. Noted. <br />3. Floodway and Erosion Mitigation Map. The map only presents the aerial extent of the <br />proposed riprap. In order to fully understand and evaluate the riprap protection proposed, <br />the DRMS requires sections perpendicular and parallel to the flow directions on the Tract <br />C and D weirs. Please provide section that meet the following specifications: <br />a. Riprap layer and bedding /granular filter layer thicknesses, <br />b. Elevation of top of riprap for each weir, <br />c. Profiles in the direction of flow showing how the riprap and bedding <br />layers tie into the proposed reclamation topography (above and/or below <br />water level). <br />d. Permanent pool water levels, and <br />