Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4 of 4 <br />16. Page App. B -42 indicates that the overall slope for the West Diversion Ditch #2 will be <br />6.5 %. This appears to be accurate for the overall ditch length, but also does not seem to <br />consider the steeper section (approximately 20 %) of the ditch for the last —200' before the <br />transition to the East Diversion Ditch. Please include a supplemental design for the <br />steeper segment of the West Diversion Ditch #2. <br />17. There appears to be an inconsistency regarding the steepness of the hillside cut slope <br />that is proposed for a portion of the expansion area. The third paragraph on Page <br />lindicates that a segment of the hillside will be graded back (steepened) to a slope of <br />1.5H:1V. On Figure 1, Section F -F' shows a cut slope of 2.0H:1V through this area. <br />Section F -F' in the Buckhorn report also depicts 2.0H:1V. Please clarify the intended <br />slope ratio to be cut at this location. <br />18. Subdrainage systems for Valley Fill disposal sites are required by Rule 4.09.2(2)(d). An <br />alternative subdrainage system was previously approved by the Division, as allowed by <br />Rule 4.10.3(5). Volume IX page 5 of the current application indicates that the subdrain <br />for CMWDA No. 2 will be extended as shown on Figure 2. While there is nothing to <br />prohibit extension of the subdrain, the proposed expansion of the waste pile in this area <br />does not appear to be a valley fill configuration. The Division suggests that construction <br />of a drain to intercept any groundwater seeps identified would be sufficient. <br />If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. <br />Sincerely, <br />Susan L. Burgmaier <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />cc: Tamme Bishop, J.E. Stover & Associates <br />