Laserfiche WebLink
III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations <br />made during the inspection. Comments in Section IV describe any enforcement actions <br />taken during the inspection and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. <br />there is a 110-foot segment of 14.5% (pitch) grade (Rule 4.03.2(3)(a)(iii)). The <br />alignment is in close proximity to the Sylvester Gulch channel. Design and <br />construction will require care to prevent erosion, siltation and pollution of water (Rule <br />4.03.2(1)(a)), and additional contributions of suspended solids to streamflow (Rule <br />4.03.2(1)(6)). Close proximity to the drainage channel will likely limit the use, or require <br />mitigation design of, outslope road cross-sections (as proposed in the geotechnical <br />report) and dips and undulations (Rule 4.03.2(4)(c)). A recommendation of the <br />geotechnical report to dispense with toe-of-cut-slope ditches is not in compliance <br />with Rule 4.03.2(4)(c), and would, without mitigation design, preclude the use of <br />sediment traps and other measures of Rule 4.03.2(4)(b)(ii). Vertical and horizontal <br />alignments appear to be in compliance with Rule 4.04.2(3)(a) and (b). Proposed <br />single-lane traffic with turnouts should assist in minimizing disturbance associated with <br />road cuts and embankment fills. Protection of salvaged topsoil (Rule 4.03.2(3)(e)(xi)) <br />and materials will require careful selection of storage areas (Rule 4.06.3). <br />C-80-007, Page _4_ of _5_ Pages, (date) _71 December 2001 (initials) _BGW <br />