Laserfiche WebLink
the waste piles had been constructed as designed and approved by DMG, as <br />required in Rule 4.09.1(11)(b). <br />DMG agrees with OSM. BRL has informed their consulting professional engineer <br />of this addition to the engineer's certification. The engineer's February 16, 1998 <br />certified report for the West Ridge waste pile contains the statement that "all fill <br />has been constructed as specified in the design approved by the Division." The <br />certification for the old waste pile does not contain that language yet because the <br />snow cover prevented a thorough inspection. The Division will consider this issue <br />closed when the engineer's certification of the old waste pile contains language <br />similar to that of the West Ridge waste pile certification, and as long as this <br />commitment is adhered to in the future for both waste piles. <br />6. OSM stated that color photographs of underdrain construction, following the <br />procedures listed in Rule 4.09.1(11)(c), are required for underdrain construction <br />and should be included in any engineer's reports that deal with future underdrain <br />construction. <br />DMG agrees with OSM. BRL has agreed to this requirement for any future <br />underdrain construction. The Division believes that this issue has been resolved, <br />provided that this commitment is upheld in the future. <br />DMG and OSM observed that the riprap located at the outlet of culvert N needed <br />to be reconstructed. <br />BRL has already performed this work. DMG believes that this issue has been <br />resolved. <br />DMG and OSM observed that a small portion of the drainage channel just below <br />culvert N needed to be reworked in order to ensure that all runoff stays in the <br />channel. <br />BRL was not able to perform this work, but has agreed to do so in the spring. <br />According to BRL, by the time they were able to move in equipment, conditions <br />had become too muddy. As stated in the DMG inspection report of August 19, <br />1997, the surface runoff had jumped out of the main channel for a few feet, but had <br />flowed back into the main channel. Immediate repair was not considered <br />necessary. However, if this ditch falls outside of compliance before the ditch can <br />be reworked, enforcement action will be pursued. <br />