Laserfiche WebLink
C~ <br />Summary of Excess Spoil Fill Characteristics <br />Fill No. Average Average Approximate Classification Drain Size" <br /> Valley Side Volume <br /> Slope Slope (mcy) <br /> (deg) (deg) <br />1 4 16 0.02 Non-Valley #6 <br />2 8 14 0.13 Non-Valley #6 <br />3 8 22 0.2 Valley #2 <br />• Refer to Fig. 6 of previous CTL report (4/27/01) <br />Site Conditions <br />Our field observations indicate site and soil conditions are similar to the <br />previously investigated fills. Deep soil cover is not present at these fill locations. <br />Evidence of seeps or recent slope or block movements were not observed. <br />Stability <br />The soil conditions, material properties and geometry, etc. of Fills 1, 2 and 3 <br />are similar or better than assumed in our previous analysis. Therefore, it is our <br />opinion that the proposed fills meet or exceed CDMG requirements for excess spoil <br />fills. <br />• Drain Systems <br />Fig. 6 of our previous report presented several drain size alternatives. We <br />recommend Drain No. 6 (6-foot height, l2-foot base width, triangular section) for Fills <br />1 and 2. Fill 3 classifies as a Valley Fill with Drain No. 2 required (12H x 22W). In our <br />previous report, we presented an analysis indicating drains smaller than required by <br />regulation will provide adequate drainage. Fill 3 is relatively small, we believe Drailn II <br />No. 6 is appropriate instead of the larger "Valley Fill" drain. W~ ~ 5 #z ,~ -t~b~ <br />Design and Construction Recommendations abave ~ <br />Design and construction recommendations presented in our previous report <br />are valid for Fills 1, 2 and 3. <br />Cow Canyon creates a "hanging valley" below Fills 1 and 2. Plans indicate the <br />toe of fill will be located about 100 feet or more away from these near vertical <br />features. This is judged adequate regarding stability, we recommend fills do not <br />encroach any closer. <br /> <br />. LORENCITO COAL COMPANY, LLC <br />CTL/T JOB NO. 73,611 2 <br />