My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-11-29_REVISION - M1977141
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977141
>
2016-11-29_REVISION - M1977141
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 6:08:13 PM
Creation date
11/30/2016 8:16:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977141
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/29/2016
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
Aggregate Industries
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR2
Email Name
MAC
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
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
In our review of the study, we noted that historical aerial photography indicates that <br /> Pool 1 is not present prior to the September 2013 flooding and that the short <br /> history of the pool would indicate that additional pools could be established as part <br /> of floodplain reclamation, even if the water rights issues require the retention pond <br /> to be backfilled as part of the pit and highwall reclamation. <br /> BCPOS also states that it is currently unclear how this reach of the St. Wain will be <br /> restored, that any effort to construct replacement habitat will take multiple years, <br /> and that the reach is currently unfunded. <br /> Similar to our response to Comment No. 1, given that the plan for restoration of the <br /> Lyons Quarry "meadow"area will not be implemented until sometime in the future, <br /> our approach will be to collaborate with Boulder County in maintaining the desired <br /> frog and bat habitat, understanding that water rights issues must be resolved and <br /> that the replacement habitat will take multiple years to construct. Our approach <br /> again will be to submit a future Technical Revision based on a collaborative plan <br /> for the future reclamation. <br /> 6.5 Geotechnical Stability Exhibit <br /> 2. The final grading plan presented in Technical Revision No. 2 (TR02) does not <br /> appear to follow the recommendations in the Engineering Stability Analysis <br /> prepared by Kleinfelder in 2008. In order to proceed with the review of the <br /> Geotechnical Stability Analysis, the Division will require verification from Kleinfelder <br /> that the grading plan presented in TR02 meets the geotechnical specifications of <br /> the Engineering Stability Analysis (2008). The documentation from Kleinfelder shall <br /> include a P.E. seal. If the proposed grading plan does not meet the geotechnical <br /> specifications of the Engineering Stability Analysis, then a new analysis will need <br /> to be prepared. <br /> Response: <br /> The 2008 Kleinfelder Engineering Stability Analysis summary report states that the <br /> existing highwall and rock slopes can be left in place with no modifications where <br /> they will be completely covered by stable fill slopes. Regarding the fill slopes, the <br /> summary report states that existing fill slopes and future constructed fill slopes can <br /> be graded to a final configuration as follows: <br /> • Bench Slope Angle 26.6 degrees or 2H:1 V <br /> • Maximum Bench Height 50 feet <br /> 13 <br /> hdrinc.com <br /> 1670 Broadway, Suite 3400, Denver,CO 80202-4824 <br /> (303)764-1520 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.