Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rob Zuber <br />August 3, 2015 <br />Page 7 <br />ITEM23. Please address the following apparent errors and questions related to the Sidehill <br />Pond design. <br />There is no primary spillway on plan view. <br />• Is the pink line the location of the 18 " CMP? <br />The spillway pipe slope is unclear. In SEDCAD it is 4%, drawing says 2.1 %, and <br />elevations (on drawing there is 1.9' drop over 125 ) indicate 1.5%. (Please checkfor all <br />ponds.) <br />There is no spec for materials of riser pipe (same for other ponds). <br />A the height of the riser pipe incorrect in Table I and in SEDCAD run? The value of 13 <br />feet contradicts the drawing; it looks like it should be 5.5 feet. (Possibly switched with <br />Section 26 Pond.) <br />Response: As noted in Item 22 above, Exh. 7-23, Figures C5 through C9 have been updated <br />with this submittal. The pink line in the plan view is the CMP, and this has now been labeled. <br />This same applies to the specification for the riser pipe for all of the drawings. In addition, the <br />primary spillway has been called out in the plan view of each of the ponds. <br />Regarding the question regarding riser height, it is correct that two West Side Models had the <br />riser heights switched between the Sidehill Impoundment and the Section 26 pond. These two <br />models have been rerun with this submittal. Although the two East Side models were not <br />affected, these have been resubmitted with a revised footer date. Additionally, Table 1 of Exh. <br />7-23C also contained this same error and has been corrected. <br />ITEM 24. Regarding the Section 26 Pond, is the height of riser pipe incorrect in Table 1 and in <br />SEDCAD run? It is 13 feet on the drawing. Please address this apparent error. <br />Response: As noted in Item 22 above, Exh. 7-23, Figures C5 through C9 have all been updated <br />with this submittal. One minor edit that has been made to all of the drawings (except for the <br />Sidehill Impoundment) is that the slope of the upstream face of the compacted fill embankment <br />has been modified from the original design slope of 2.5H:1 V to a revised slope of 3.OH: i V to <br />better match the assumptions made by the geotechnical study. <br />ITEM 25. The term "Sec 361Widdle Pond" in SEDCAD is confusing. Should it be " lllliddle <br />Pond"? Please revise if SEDCAD is re -run. <br />Response: We agree that this nomenclature is somewhat confusing, but technically the Middle <br />Pond is also located in Section 36 and the other structures in the model clearly identified. We do <br />not believe this minor change to the description necessitates revising the 40 pages of text <br />involved. No changes have been made at this time; although we will note this should the model <br />be redone. <br />-1 1„ i, 1 II, E IW1-,, t' It't 111 3 <br />