Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Sandy Emrich -2- June 25, 1982 <br />Another area not discussed is the possibility of lining the ditch with impervious <br />material. Should mass wasted material block the ditch during a heavy runoff <br />event, a small impoundment would form. If the ditch were lined with impervious <br />material (asphalt, clay, hypalon), the hazard of fill saturation would be greatly <br />reduced. <br />Colorado Westmoreland should consider the following items when presenting a <br />plan for improvement of this ditch: <br />1) Stability concerns, <br />2) Minimizing additional disturbance, <br />3) Vegetative cover on the coZluvial cut slopes, and <br />4) Ditch lining. <br />The second recommendation provided by dferrick & Co. is to install an auxiliary <br />diversion channel. Should this auxiliary diversion become part of a proposal by <br />Colorado Westmoreland, sufficient design information should be provided to show <br />that the culvert (2Z" cmp) will pass the 10-year, 29-hour storm peak flow. A <br />small area exemption should be applied for for the area no longer served by <br />the sediment control system (Rule 4.05.2(3)). <br />Other Benches: <br />The Division has no concern regarding the recommendation for the regrading of <br />the ditch on the Portal Bench to drain to Node 4. This action should be under- <br />taken as soon as possible. <br />It is not clear what is intended by the first recommendation Listed under <br />Crushing and Screening Level Fill of the Fferrick & Co. report. Amore thorough <br />discussion of the effects cahich pipe Df has on this fill should be provided. The <br />second recommended action should be undertaken as soon as possible. <br />waste Rock Pile: <br />The Division concurs with the Merrick 6 Co. report that the location of the waste <br />rock pile should not interfere with natural drainage patterns. <br />Reclaimed Facilities: <br />There is not enough information given to formulate review. <br />/mt <br />w <br />