My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2021-03-16_REVISION - M1977300 (12)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2021-03-16_REVISION - M1977300 (12)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2025 2:43:45 AM
Creation date
3/17/2021 6:54:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/16/2021
Doc Name Note
Pt. 1 of 2
Doc Name
Record of Construction
From
Colorado Legacy Land, LLC
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR28
Email Name
AME
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
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
�k COLORADO LEGACY LAND <br /> RESPONSE TO COMMENT MATRIX <br /> Document e:`" o a e ock Pile Diversion Ch n — ecord of Construction <br /> Submission Date: December 22,2020 <br /> Reviewers : Amy Eschber ,er,Environmental Protection Specialist and Tim Cazier,P.E. <br /> Review Date: Feb ary 22,2021 <br /> Comment No. Section No. Page Line No. <br /> No. Comment Response to Comment <br /> 1 As-built Sheet 5 Slopes There is a slight difference in the gradient Slopes were recalculated to include the elevation at <br /> Drawings calculated from the drawing data between the Alignment Point(Sta.2+79.78). <br /> the grade breaks at stations 2+58.60 and <br /> 2+90.28. It is not clear as to whether the The slopes now match the reviewer's comment: <br /> elevation at the 2+79.78 Alignment Pt was Downstream of Alignment Point= 14.5% <br /> factored into eh gradient. Theis difference Upstream of Alignment Point=10.5% <br /> between 14.5%and 14.6%is likely a <br /> rounding error,but when the elevation at the <br /> alignment point is included,the slope is <br /> 13.2%(see Attachment A for DRMS <br /> calculations). Please address the gradient <br /> discrepancy and provide a corrected As-Built <br /> Drawing. <br /> 2 As-Built Sheet 6 Slopes There is one percent difference in the Slopes were recalculated to include the elevation at <br /> Drawings gradient calculated from the drawing data the Alignment Point(Sta.4+71.10). <br /> between the grade breaks at stations 3+86.41 <br /> and 4+75.55. It is not clear as to whether the The slopes now match the reviewer's comment: <br /> elevation at the 4+71.10 Alignment Pt was Downstream of Alignment Point= 18.5% <br /> factored into the gradient(see Attachment A Upstream of Alignment Point=17.1% <br /> for DRMS calculations). Please clarify <br /> whether this is a math or a typographic error, <br /> and provide a corrected As-Built Drawing. <br /> 3 As-Built Sheet 9 Elevations There appear to be 16 errors in as-built Site Plan Detail: <br /> Drawings elevations. Eleven apparent errors are in the -Twelve elevations where decreased by 100 feet. <br /> Site plan Dissipation Basin;three in the Plan -Two elevations were added to depict the top of the <br /> View Dissipation Basin;and two in the riprap basin. <br /> Section A-A:Profile. With the exception of <br /> the left-most elevation in Section A-A,all the Plan View: <br /> elevations appear to be about 100 feet too -All three elevations were decrease by 100 feet. <br /> high. The left-most elevation in Section A-A -Apron Elev.changed to match Section A-A Profile. <br /> appears to be about 20 feet too high. Please -Basin Floor Elevation unchanged. <br /> provide a corrected drawing. -Channel Invert:adjusted to 6,641.78(matched <br /> survey point). <br /> PAGE 1 OF 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.