Laserfiche WebLink
COLORADO LEGACY LAND <br /> ECHNICAL REVISION#28,COMMENT AND RESPONSE SUMMARY ABLE <br /> - RESPONSE TO COMMENT <br /> c. There is a discrepancy between the response statement in c) No longer applicable. Any debris that enters the ditch will <br /> the third paragraph of Comment 41"Tree branches and either flush through the system or can be easily seen in a visual <br /> large debris will not enter the pipe due to the trash rack at inspection and removed. <br /> the head wall."and that of the second sentence in the first <br /> paragraph of Comment#5:"The trash rack at the head wall <br /> will prevent the majority of tree branches and debris from <br /> entering the system."The Division is inclined to accept the <br /> latter statement and given the pressure flow discussed <br /> above,is more concerned with how potential debris clogging <br /> could lead to pipe joint leakage into the NWRP.Please clarify <br /> the discrepancy. <br /> d. The question where surcharge would flow was not d) No longer applicable. <br /> answered.Bolted lids will not control surcharge at the <br /> headwall inlet resulting from clogged pipe or flows <br /> exceeding the design flow.Surcharge flow over the NWRP is <br /> not acceptable.Please respond to where surcharge flows <br /> would be directed. <br /> Drawings(Sheets 1 through 5): <br /> [4] Sheet2.Additional clarification is required: <br /> a. Given the depth to bedrock is unknown,the presence of a) The shallow excavation required to install the trench will limit, <br /> shallow bedrock will require additional vertical bends in a or even eliminate, obstruction by bedrock. Table 1 depicts the <br /> field fit design,thereby potentially decreasing the range of hydraulics expected in the ditch system. <br /> performance of the revised proposed design.The Division <br /> will require a hydraulic analysis of an As-Built design as an <br /> addendum to this TR.The analysis may result in <br /> 5 unacceptable performance requiring expensive <br /> reconstruction.The modified design required to meet <br /> performance standards would require the submittal of anew <br /> technical revision to evaluate the modified design. <br /> b. ....will blasting be required?No further response is required <br /> at this time. b)We recommend no revisions in response to this comment. <br /> c. The response states excavation into the waste rock will <br /> occur under the access road.How will the integrity of the c) Excavation into the waste rock pile will occur under the access <br /> EPF be maintained during and post construction?Please road,however, as described in Section 7.5 of the Schwartzwalder <br /> provide a plan for handling waste rock pursuant to Mine Environmental Protection Plan Whetstone Associates <br /> PAGE 40F10 <br />