Laserfiche WebLink
10. Response accepted. <br />11. Response accepted. <br />12. This item has been satisfactorily addressed in SCC's response. The Division observes that <br />there is a fairly abrupt grade transition at the beginning of the road alignment, to 10.1% from <br />the existing grade, and a similar sharp difference at the end. We understand that certain <br />elements of this project will be "field-fit", with final as-built plans provided when construction <br />is complete. <br />13. Response accepted. <br />14. Response accepted. <br />15. Response accepted. <br />16. SCC responds that this is simply an area where materials excavated during the slide <br />remediation will be placed onto previously graded spoils within areas previously mined. <br />Please describe the foundation preparation, methods of placement, and the type of <br />compactive effort that will be employed for these materials in order to guarantee stability of <br />the fill. <br />17. Response accepted. <br />18. Response accepted. <br />19. Response accepted. <br />20. Response accepted. <br />21. Response accepted. <br />22. Response accepted. <br />23. Response accepted. <br />24. Response accepted. <br />25. The Division asked SCC to clarify whether the two stock tanks were primary sediment control <br />structures and, if they were, to provide design information. SCC responded that the <br />structures are not primary sediment control structures, and directed the Division to closely <br />review the SEDCAD design. SCC maintains that these structures are an integral part of the <br />drainage system in that they provide some runoff control by slowing the velocity of runoff at <br />that point. SCC is correct; these do provide velocity control as they are currently constructed. <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />