My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-03-16_REVISION - M1977141
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977141
>
2017-03-16_REVISION - M1977141
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 6:08:14 PM
Creation date
4/4/2017 11:01:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977141
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/16/2017
Doc Name
Adequacy Response No. 3
From
Aggregate Industries - WCR, Inc.
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR2
Email Name
MAC
WHE
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.
/
75
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
F)� <br /> the report are based on minimum safety factors greater than 1.5 and 1.1, <br /> for static and pseudo-static loading conditions. <br /> 8. Based on the site grading plans, it appears that the Template 1 <br /> (Section 7.1.1) has been the selected for the final highwall <br /> configuration. The recommendations for Template 1 in Section 8 <br /> include rockfall catchment berms located at the toe of the Fountain <br /> Formation and on top of the dacite sill contact and reinforcement, using <br /> rock anchors and shotcrete, on the northeast facing slopes where <br /> potential wedge failures are likely. <br /> o A long-term catchment berm maintenance plan should be <br /> developed to provide guidance for periodic inspection, cleaning out, <br /> and maintenance of the berms. <br /> o Determination of the responsible entity to conduct the <br /> catchment berm inspection, cleanout, and maintenance <br /> should be included. <br /> o Areas that will be reinforced should be shown on the <br /> grading plan and reclamation plans. <br /> Response: <br /> Similar to the response to Comment 4, the reclamation plan calls for the <br /> cut slopes in the sedimentary rock to be protected by a stable 2-foot <br /> layer of riprap to address the rockfall hazard potential, so rockfall <br /> catchment berms should not be required and the need for inspection and <br /> maintenance eliminated. Likewise, the reclamation plan shows the <br /> highwall areas backfilled and buttressed with stable fill slopes and the <br /> need for reinforcement eliminated. <br /> 9. Section 8.3 includes recommendations for construction monitoring by a <br /> geotechnical professional. <br /> o What parameters will the monitoring entail? <br /> o What are critical action levels? <br /> Response: <br /> The reclamation plan does not include any of the alternatives described <br /> in the geotechnical report for reinforced slopes that would require <br /> monitoring and confirmation of the rock mass properties used as the <br /> basis for design. Alternately, most of the construction will be cut-and-fill <br /> earthwork. The monitoring parameters will be those generally used for <br /> earthwork construction, including material properties and particle sizes, <br /> lift thickness, compaction effort, final slope grades, etc. These <br /> 9 <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.