My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005-11-14_REVISION - M1978056
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1978056
>
2005-11-14_REVISION - M1978056
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2021 6:08:22 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 8:59:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978056
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/14/2005
Doc Name
Reply to Division Correspondence of 13 April 2005
From
Varra Companies Inc.
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
TR2
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.
/
7
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 />Per Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., the Sediment Trap on Sheet 6 is a temporary best <br />management erosion control feature, which would be installed only if the riprap shown on Sheet <br />6 had been constructed. Reclamation of the azea disturbed by the sediment trap will consist of <br />returning the river to its previous condition. i <br />10. Please discuss the de-watering or water diversion measures to be employed for <br />management of the Cache La Poudre River flows during final reclamation of the berm for <br />those sections of the flood control berm where the south bank of the river is coincident <br />with the north outslope of the berm, i.e., the historic south bank of the river has been <br />replaced with the outslope of the flood control berm. <br />It is the opinion of VCI that the normal winter time water levels in the Cache la Poudre River <br />will not pose a threat to the construction of the FCMP; and therefore, management of Cache la <br />Poudre River flows will not be required. If dewatering is required during construction, the <br />dewatering will be dischazged into the existing gravel pit lakes. <br />11. Please clarify whether there is a need fora 2"d inlet spillway? Why or why not? <br />Per Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., the need for a second inlet spillway was evaluated <br />during the design for the FCMP. It was determined by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. that <br />floodwaters could be safely conveyed into and through the Durham Pit via a single spillway at <br />the west end of the pit. <br />12. Please clarify whether there is a need for an outlet (return) spillway? Why or why not? <br />Per Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., the need for a defined outleUreturn spillway at the east <br />end of the Durham Pit was evaluated during the design of the FCMP. It was determined that for <br />events in excess of the 10-yeaz event (the water surface level at which the inlet spillway begins <br />to operate) the channel downstream of the Durham Pit will be at capacity thereby negating the <br />need for an outlet spillway. <br />13. The Division understand the potential of broken concrete rubble for use as a riprap <br />material; however, the "Construction Specifications" provided by Anderson Consulting <br />Engineers state that broken concrete is not acceptable for use as riprap. Please verify that <br />broken concrete on site at the Durham Pit will not be used as riprap material for Flood <br />Control Mitigation. <br />All riprap material will conform to the as-built drawings by the engineering firm performing <br />construction management of the structure. ', <br />Vatta Companies, Inc. M1978-056 Dml~am Sand 8c Gravel Pit -Technical Revision 2 -Monday 14 November 5 <br />2005 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.