Laserfiche WebLink
C-1982-057 TR-73 <br />Engineering-Geotech PAR No. 2 <br />31-May-2011 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />6. Although not stated directly, the NWCC report seems to imply that relocated Channels <br />PM-2A and PM-2 will now serve the dual purposes of transport of surface water runoff <br />and interception of subsurface water that is flowing into and out of the shrub plot <br />landslide. Please verify that this is or is not the intent of the proposed plan. <br />This item has been satisfactorily addressed in SCCs response. <br />7. Construction of PM-2 across the toe of the shrub plot landslide may contribute to <br />additional loss of stability in the slide mass due to the removal of any materials now <br />acting as a buttress. Subsequent downhill movement of the mass could encroach upon <br />the PM-2 channel and create a damming effect. Please address the possibility of this <br />scenario occurring. <br />This item has been satisfactorily addressed in SCCs response. <br />8. The current application does not propose the construction of any ditches or channels to <br />divert surface or subsurface flow away from the eastern two-thirds of the shrub plot <br />landslide. While regrading the area is not yet feasible, would installation of a cutoff <br />channel be possible with TR-73? <br />SCC responds that the depth to the subsurface water level is greater than 20 feet at that <br />location, and a cutoff channel is not feasible. This question has been adequately <br />answered. <br />Susan: this may be more qf a MIC question: is the development of a spoil spring <br />anticipatedNE ofPond 016A? Aerialphotos (71112004) show apond ofpit water <br />collected there at one thne. <br />9. Page I of the text states that the new road will be approximately 20 feet wide. Please add <br />a typical section for the road to this map, showing the proposed configuration for both cut <br />and fill situations, with roadside ditches and proposed surfacing material and thickness. <br />This item has been satisfactorily addressed in SCCs response. <br />10. The Division was unable to find details with the TR-73 application that describe how the <br />road will be constructed to comply with the requirements of Section 4.03.2 — Access <br />Roads. Please provide the details and required commitments, or direct the Division to the <br />place in the current permit where these items are already addressed. <br />This item has been satisfactorily addressed in SCCs response. <br />11. A vertical profile is provided beneath the plan view. The profile is drawn with both <br />horizontal and vertical scales at 1"=100'. Please modify the vertical scale to be I"=20', <br />and add elevation levels at each VPL <br />This item has been satisfactorily addressed in SCCs response. <br />12. The profile view shows only the proposed road surface. Please add an additional line <br />depicting the existing ground surface. <br />