My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-04-03_REVISION - M1980149
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980149
>
2008-04-03_REVISION - M1980149
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:39:00 PM
Creation date
4/7/2008 9:06:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980149
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
4/3/2008
Doc Name
Adequacy review comments (part 1)
From
Applegate Group, Inc.
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM3
Email Name
ESC
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.
/
148
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
Ms. Erica Crosby <br />RE: held County. Hokestra Pit <br />April 3, 2008 <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />returns to the River. This means that reservoir N will not likely be significantly lower than the <br />surrouniting reservoirs. Therefore, a scenario where floodwaters would fill reservoir II prior to <br />reservoir N and cause significant erosion to the berm are unlikely. <br />c. The stability model assumed the following assumptions: <br />• The pit depth is 17 feet below the crest of the embankment. Design depth will vary between <br />12 and 15 feet. 17 feet is therefore a conservative approach. <br />• Embankment side slopes for reservoir II are at a 4:1. <br />• Embankment slopes for the St. Vrain are slightly steeper than 3:1. <br />• The river invert is at 12 feet below the bank. The river invert elevation was taken from <br />existing information. <br />• NW~S and IIWS of the St. Vrain were taken from the HEC-RAS model. <br />• Soil information was derived from on-site soil tests. A copy of the tests is included. <br />,Type of Unit Moisture .Saturated Cohesion Friction Angle <br />Mal:erial (pcf) Weight (pcf) Intercept (psf)(deg) <br />~san~d &gravel 111.4 114.9 0 35 <br />shale bedrock 128.9 132.4 2000 35 <br />engineered fill' 122.7 127.1 100 20 <br />* Processed shale <br />• The existing riprap was not considered in the model. The model is therefore more <br />conservative than existing conditions. The existing riprap will add weight and stability to the <br />sand and gravel slopes that were assumed in the model; hence the stability of the slopes <br />would increase along with the factor of safety. <br />Results of the model are included as an appendix to this letter. <br />Erica, I trust this letter addresses your comments. You can trust that Weld County, as a public entity will <br />act in accordance: with protecting the public safety and welfare. Again, I appreciate your time and effort <br />on this project. I,et me know if you need anything further. <br />Sincerely, <br />Appl, ate Giroup Inc. <br />r r {' <br />Jen ' er J Lee <br />Pr ect Engi eer <br />JJL/ta <br />Attachment <br />cc: Greg Nelson, Weld County Public Works <br />AG File 1'06-125 <br />\\FIeroules\projecb106125 Nokestra liuing\DMO petmit\Submittal\Adequeoy roviewlReply2.docx <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.