Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo -Dan Hernandez - 2 - l~pril 4, 1990 <br /> <br />g c g <br />overflow the road, breach the outside berm and probably erode the hillslope. <br />This option presents a concern to the Division as it does not appesar as stated <br />in the proposal to meet the performance standards of Rule 6.1(2) rind <br />Sections 116(g), (h) and (i) of the Act. <br />0 ti on 3 This plan requires no new culvert installation from then existing <br />con i ions by Cedar Heights but proposes a smaller culvert at HR-f.. The <br />21" culvert will cause more runoff to bypass the culvert and run down the <br />access road ditch. If this option is chosen, the evaluation of cFiannel <br />stability at 37.6 cfs must be completed by Castle. If the results; are <br />favorable and the hold-harmless agreement is reached between Castle and <br />Cedar Heights, the plan is acceptable. <br />0 tion 4 This option is to not install HR-6 or any other culverl;s along <br />e ar ei hts Drive As mentioned in the dis ussion the desi n 1'1 ow would <br />If this option were pursued, the design of the roadside ditch muse; be <br />evaluated to insure it has sufficient capacity to handle the entire flow <br />expected in a stable manner. The "roadside ditch" in effect becomes a channel <br />carrying over 100 cfs. Same type of energy dissipation or sedimentation <br />control may be needed at the entrance to the 54" culvert (NR -7 ). The Division <br />is not opposed to this option but has insufficient information at present to <br />judge the adequacy of this proposal fully. <br />0~~ppt~ion 5~ This option was proposed by Greg Nagle and includes all elements of <br />North the addition of improvements to the lower road drainage. The <br />additional attention to areas where the road drains to the outside berm is a <br />valid point and should be addressed. Whether a new culvert is needed or not <br />needs further consideration. <br />0 tion 6 This option calls for installation of a 30" culvert at HR-6 to <br />carry a full flow without any bypass downstream. This was identified by the <br />Division originally as the most efficient hydrologic plan. It re~luires, <br />however, accomodation of downstream effects not presently defined. <br />0 t_p ion _7 An additional proposal which also could be considered is to route <br />The Corrective Action Plan called for the operator to work with Cedar Heights <br />and other objectors on these problems and submit a final plan by I~larch 31, <br />1990. This final plan appears unresolved at present although the number of <br />options have been identified. <br />e u flow of HR-6 under the road but direct it through an open ditch to <br />outlet above the twin 72" culverts on Cedar Heights Drive. The feasibility of <br />this option would require further hydrologic investigation and an agreement <br />with Cedar Heights on access for construction. <br />/ern <br />cc: Bruce Humphries <br />Steve Renner <br />5752E <br />