Laserfiche WebLink
To: Ms. Faucher-English <br /> Date: .1UIV 28, 2021 <br /> Page 7 <br /> Rule 3.1.5(7) <br /> Max Slopes <br /> Pre-Erosion <br /> Slope <br /> ' Slopes Checked <br /> 4800 from Water <br /> Surface/Water's .. 4v <br /> Edge <br /> Zsurveyed <br /> Erosion Moved Soil Ground <br /> .,� from above to Surface <br /> ' below Water Level (PLS <br /> 2021) <br /> ' 20' from 15' from <br /> 4775 Water's Edge Water's Edge <br /> 0+00 0+60 <br /> Figure 5 Natural Pond Erosion at Water's Edge <br /> Regrading Evaluation <br /> Based on the evaluation presented previously, Cell 4 meets the reclamation requirements <br /> of Rule 3.1.5(7) because Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete, Inc. (LRM) completed <br /> ' reclamation grading at slopes gentler than those required by the rule. The existing <br /> topography, even after being exposed to erosional forces, still meets the average slope <br /> requirements as exhibited in Sheet 1. Thus,regrading of the slopes is not needed and would <br /> set back the excellent vegetation establishment existing on the banks. The majority of the <br /> areas mentioned in DRMS's letter for Zones 9, 20, 25, 26 and part of 27, are at 3V:1H and <br /> regrading would simply be removing a few inches of topsoil without enhancing slope <br /> Istability. <br /> The one questionable area of Zone 25 shown in the cross sections (Sheet 2 and Figure 2) <br /> ' are stable and have average slopes that meet the rule. If DRMS required LRM to regrade <br /> the upper portion of the slope, the design would be to excavate the excess at the crest and <br /> haul stockpile it nearby (you would not want to push it into the pond as it would settle at <br /> angle of repose, exacerbating the slope issue). This would result in an approximately <br /> 20210727_S1opeEvaltratlon_DRMS RTC_SFE.docx T E L E S T O <br />