My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
1984-08-01 Regular Meeting (2)
LaPorte
>
City Secretary
>
Minutes
>
City Council
>
1980's
>
1984
>
1984-08-01 Regular Meeting (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2016 12:06:59 PM
Creation date
3/21/2025 1:40:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Meetings
Meeting Body
City Council
Meeting Doc Type
Minutes
Date
8/1/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />Division of Public Works <br />• Mr. Jerry Hodge <br />July 19, 1984 <br />Page 3 <br />• <br />Woodward-Clyde Consultants <br />Typical time required from a notice to proceed to completion of <br />"Attachment 11" geotechnical report is approximately 2 months. However, <br />we anticipate that•additional consultation with DPW and FIDR and meetings <br />with the TDS may be necessary after completion of the report. <br />Because of the presence of growth faults in the general area of this <br />site and some evidence that a fault may exist on the property south of <br />the site, some additional geological study will be required relative to <br />the the fault issue. We will try to develop sufficient evidence from <br />existing data (additional aerial photos, geophysically logged borings, <br />etc.) to demonstrate that no active growth faults cross the site. <br />Gathering and interpretation of this type of evidence is reasonably <br />straight-forward and should be budgeted at $1,500 to $3,000. If, <br />however, this type of study does not satisfy the TDH or if intervener <br />claims must be refuted, a more extensive fault study may be required. <br />The more extensive study, commonly referred to as a "Second Phase" <br />study, requires a series of deep geophysically logged borings in order <br />to check for offsets of geologic units (direct evidence of faults). <br />• A second phase fault study would be conducted if required to satisfy the <br />TDH or in defense of the permit application. That study would be <br />conducted to verify a fault does not exist on the proposed landfill site <br />or is not present within some distance from the proposed site such that <br />it would affect the site. <br />We anticipate that our work would include the following: <br />o Conduct a field study consisting of geophysically logged boring <br />holes approximately 300 ft deep along traverses normal to <br />suspected fault directions; and <br />o Prepare a report outlining our findings with appropriate maps to <br />illustrate the location of borings, any fault locations, and <br />hazard zones. <br />The most reliable method of establishing fault locations is by <br />geophysically logged boreholes in lines approximately normal to a <br />fault. Typically, three to five boreholes per line are required to <br />establish fault offset with any degree of reliability. A single line of <br />borings may be suitable to resolve the presence or absence of a fault <br />along any one boundary. However, two or more lines of borings may be <br />required to show an absence of faulting on a property, particularly if <br />it is necessary to define the distance to a fault that is nearby but <br />offsite. <br />LJ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.