Laserfiche WebLink
<br />June 8, 1990 <br />Page 4 <br />Since April 18, 1990 RRI has totally reconfigured the <br />slope has been reduced from 1.5:1 to 3:1, and the mater: <br />mechanically compacted. These activities should fur <br />potential erosion. <br />rm. The <br />has been <br />r reduce <br />For these reasons RRI objects to further stabilization a tivities. <br />Nonetheless, pursuant to discussions with the MLRD, RRI w'll commit <br />to inspect the berm for erosion each spring following snowmelt. <br />If erosion becomes a problem, RRI will take measure such as <br />gravels or staked hay bales in the problem areas. <br />EXHIBIT G - HYDROIAGY <br />1. Reclamation Resources must provide engineering etail to <br />demonstrate that drainage from all affected lands wi hin Phase <br />I flows to Pond No. 1. Also please review item 11 in our <br />April 10, 1990 adequacy letter and address the diversion <br />discussed in that comment. <br />The requested engineering detail, in the form of a slop study is <br />provided in the attached report. <br />2. Reclamation Resources must provide a map with ufficient <br />contour intervals to demonstrate that the site can eject the <br />25-year flood event. All affected lands adjacent t the river <br />must have an elevation at least five feet above t e average <br />water surface of the stream. In those areas where opography <br />does not lend itself to this configuration, a be or other <br />diversion sufficient to reject the 25-year flood vent must <br />be constructed. Please address. <br />The Division is requiring that all portions of th's concern <br />be addressed. The five foot level above the av age water <br />surface is required to provide a one foot safety f ctor above <br />the expected 25-year flood event which is approxi ately four <br />feet above the average high water line. <br />RRI believes that the request to map the site with sufficient <br />contour intervals to demonstrate rejection of a 25 yea flood is <br />unduly burdensome. A combination of a site inspection nd several <br />transects demonstrate that the only point of concern ithin the <br />permit area is that portion of the berm designated as " rea No. 1" <br />in the MLRD comments. Measures to provide flood protect on in that <br />area are described in the attached report. <br />3. An existing diversion from the Columbia Ditch and uried pipe <br />is indicated in Plate 2. Please provide a discus ion of the <br />diversion including diversion design, flow ca acity and <br />materials used in construction. Your response t this item <br />was that water will be transported as needed from t e headgate <br />