Laserfiche WebLink
planned to determine if the Upper Diversion at CRDA-2 would meet capacity <br />requirements by inputting data we gathered into SEDCAD, because segments of the <br />ditch were V-shaped instead of trapezoidal and dimensions appeared to be less than <br />designed in places. Third, DMG also planned to run SEDCAD with data we gathered at <br />some sections of CRDA-2's East and West Collection Ditches to see how they can be <br />expected to function where grades fall between the 3% and 33% design gradients. <br />Last, DMG's hydrologist was consulted for an opinion about the importance of <br />piezometer number 307 to monitoring water levels in CRDA-1. Determinations on <br />these issues are pending. <br />Except as noted above, overall the data we compiled during the field review showed <br />that the piles appeared to have been built to-date as designed in the approved permit. <br />I note the limitations inherent in verifying construction using rough field measurements <br />in the absence of engineer's construction certifications. While most measurements <br />appeared to be within design parameters or close to them (knowing our field <br />measurements were not exact), an engineer's certifications that structures were built as <br />designed would provide assurances about the piles' construction and stability that <br />DMG's rules intend them to provide. Absent an engineer's certification of underdrain <br />construction, I am not certain about any aspect of their construction. I am aware of <br />anecdotal evidence from DMG to the effect that previous inspectors knew of their <br />construction, which should be documented in reports of past state inspections in DMG's <br />archives. Engineer's quarterly reports should be submitted to DMG on a more timely <br />basis to comply with 4.09.1(11)(b). <br />Mr. Reschke was advised that a number of items need attention. Those items included: <br />the hole at the toe of the ditch cut in CRDA-2 about 200' west of the junction of <br />the diversion with the old access road remnant at a bend in the diversion should <br />be repaired; <br />the unapproved 100' section of ditch line at the south end of the RRDA, <br />extending from the rock face to pond 9, should be designed and approved as <br />part of the permit especially if it won't be eliminated by the pending revision; and <br />the need to clean out pond 8. <br />16 <br />