Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Boulay <br />-23- July 8, 2011 <br />Additional Questions regarding the Light Use Road <br />The Light Use Road appears in cross sections on Map 12 (both fill and cut situations), <br />and in Section A -A- on Map 21 (Rail Loop cut section). The first paragraph on page <br />2.05 -16 of the application indicates that the light use road runs parallel to the rail loop, <br />is nearly level, and is about 1.5 miles long. <br />51k. In Exhibit 16, the Union Pacific STD DGW 0001B includes Note 4 which <br />states, "Where off -track roadway is to be provided, add 10' -0" additional <br />width to the roadbed section at top of selected material elevation." It is not <br />clear whether this is the proposed method of construction of the Light Use <br />Road, or whether other materials will be used. Please describe the materials <br />proposed for construction of the Light Use Road. <br />CAM - Please see revised text on page 2.05 -16. <br />511. The outer slope on Map 12 is shown as 2:1, with 2:1 bermed ditch located <br />downslope. Is a ditch of this configuration feasible to build /maintain on a 2:1 <br />steep slope? The Division suggests that a preferred alternative may be to <br />install silt fence or excelsior erosion logs on or at toe of slope, due to the <br />small disturbed area and flat grades. <br />CAM - The type of ditch /berm configuration as designed is feasible and will be less <br />maintenance long term than thousands of feet silt fence and /or excelsior erosion <br />logs. No changes will be made to the design. <br />51m. Please add a Light Use Road typical section to Map 15 or Map 21 showing <br />its configuration in relation to the Rail Loop embankment for both cut and fill <br />sections. <br />CAM - The light use road is shown on Map -12 in sections A -A' and B -B'. In addition, in <br />Exhibit 16, Note 4 of the Roadbed typical section for track construction <br />addresses the light use road section. No additional section will be submitted. <br />Rule 2.05.3(4) Ponds, Impoundments, and Diversions <br />52. Division Response: Response accepted. <br />53. Division Response: Response accepted. <br />54. The Division has a general concern regarding the sediment pond designs and <br />their location. The long ponds immediately adjacent to the railroad track <br />embankment could cause stability problems over time due to saturation of the <br />embankment fill. Does the design and location of these ponds meet the Union <br />Pacific railroad's requirements governing the construction of embankments? <br />