View: Project Documents
| Agency | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
PCD Project Manager
11/29/2021 8:19:31 AM |
Approved docs uploaded | 11/29/2021 8:19:31 AM | |
|
PCD Engineering Division
11/2/2021 3:39:57 PM |
Please supply the bridge decking and the substructure plans with signature blocks and signatures as appropriate. E. Nijkamp |
11/2/2021 3:39:57 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
11/1/2021 4:07:33 PM |
When PCD Engineer has CDS completed for review ; stamps will be placed and docs will be uploaded. | 11/1/2021 4:07:33 PM | |
| View |
Traffic Review Consultant
9/9/2021 5:31:42 PM |
See attached comment memo. | 9/9/2021 5:31:42 PM |
|
PCD Engineering Division
7/28/2021 11:40:58 AM |
Comment written by E. Nijkamp: Please see FHU comments in EDARP and attached comments on the prior comment letter. Please call if you have any questions or concerns, 719-237-7206. |
7/28/2021 11:40:58 AM | |
| View |
Traffic Review Consultant
7/28/2021 11:06:52 AM |
Here is a brief list of what FHU was expecting to see that was not included/available on EDARP: Structures - - Statement about specifications for superstructure OR superstructure project special specifications - Written response explaining how each of our comments was addressed - Updated superstructure bridge design calculations - Information on rip rap limits on the Bridge Hydraulic Plan - Scour limits on the Bridge Hydraulic Plan Hydraulics - - Riprap sizing calculations - Final version of the report with all calculations attached, contraction scour and riprap calculations were not provided. - Discussion about the rise in the water surface elevation and if it meets the criteria to not trigger a CLOMR. The discussion did not fully address this and the electronic HEC-RAS files were not provided to check if there is a still a rise in the water surface elevation in the floodplain. We have noted these items on the attached copy of our previous review memo. |
7/28/2021 11:06:52 AM |
|
EPC Stormwater Review
7/28/2021 8:38:47 AM |
Review 3: No additional comments. Reviewed by: Glenn Reese, P.E. Stormwater Engineer I glennreese@elpasoco.com |
7/28/2021 8:38:47 AM | |
| View |
EPC Environmental Services
7/23/2021 1:38:10 PM |
7/23/2021 1:38:10 PM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
7/23/2021 7:19:06 AM |
The outside consultant has been requested to review this application; a review fee will be requested when comments are returned from the consultant. | 7/23/2021 7:19:06 AM | |
| View |
Traffic Review Consultant
6/29/2021 10:53:38 AM |
See attached memo for our third review comments. We understand that a meeting is being planned to discuss further. |
6/29/2021 10:53:38 AM |
|
PCD Project Manager
6/11/2021 12:50:03 PM |
All items added to BlueBeam for outside consultant to review | 6/11/2021 12:50:03 PM | |
|
EPC Stormwater Review
6/10/2021 12:21:44 PM |
Review 3: Per previous review comments: EPC Stormwater does not have any comments on any of the uploaded documents. Thanks. Reviewed by: Glenn Reese, P.E. Stormwater Engineer I glennreese@elpasoco.com |
6/10/2021 12:21:44 PM | |
| View |
Tri-Lakes-Monument Fire Protection District
5/27/2021 2:32:51 PM |
No additional comments. JCB | 5/27/2021 2:32:51 PM |
| View |
PCD Engineering Division
5/25/2021 1:03:05 PM |
Attached is the review 2 comment letter. Based on the remaining comments the resubmittal will continue to be outsourced for review. A separate email has been forwarded to the design engineer (Kyle Campbell) on May 24 detailing the additional cost for the pending third review. Reviewed by: Gilbert LaForce, PE gilbertlaforce@elpasoco.com |
5/25/2021 1:03:05 PM |
| View |
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
5/21/2021 10:53:18 AM |
5/21/2021 10:53:18 AM | |
| View |
Traffic Review Consultant
5/20/2021 3:10:50 PM |
Comments submitted via Bluebeam session on May 19, 2021. | 5/20/2021 3:10:50 PM |
| View |
EPC Environmental Services
5/14/2021 1:27:59 PM |
5/14/2021 1:27:59 PM | |
|
US Fish Wildlife, Ecological Svcs. (USDOI, Fish & Wildlife Svc.)
5/14/2021 9:42:34 AM |
May 14, 2021 Hello Kari Parsons, On May 6, 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received notice from El Paso County to retrieve through EDARP a set of documents for consideration related to a Construction Drawing Review from Classic Consulting for the Mesa Top Drive Bridge over North Beaver Creek as part of the 81-acre Forest Lakes Phase II development (project). The project would involve 0.50 acre on either side of the bridge I reviewed these documents specifically to determine whether there would be any concerns related to the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Preble’s mouse), a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Preble’s mice occupy the Beaver Creek area and the bridge would cross through suitable habitat. Among the documents, only the HYDRAULIC REPORT FOR FOREST LAKES FILING 6, MESA TOP BRIDGE, EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO from January 2021 had any mention of this, where on page 4 it states, “As the limits of Filing 6 are outside of the existing drainage corridors, there is no land development grading proposed within the existing wetlands, mouse habitat, and/or 100-year floodplain limits. The drainage maps in the Appendix of this report show the existing wetland limits, Preble’s Jumping Mouse habitat limits, and effective FEMA floodplain.” In reviewing the Drainage Map in the Appendix, it is possible to make out the 100-year floodplain limit line and one or two areas marked as “Existing Wetland,” but this is not clear. However, I was not able to determine from the map any areas marked as “Preble’s Jumping Mouse habitat limits.” Thus, from what I could determine there is no accounting of the project’s impacts to Preble’s mice or their habitats among the documents posted in EDARP. Therefore, I cannot confirm the document’s statement that, “…there is no land development grading proposed within the…mouse habitat…” The close proximity of the bridge to Beaver Creek would suggest that this conclusion is not currently supported. For the Service to determine the project’s impacts to Preble’s mouse habitat, project proponents will need to provide us a Biological Evaluation in which it explains in clear detail the extent of Preble’s mouse suitable habitat in the project area, the project’s direct and indirect impacts to Preble’s mouse habitat, the seasonal timing of its planned actions, and conservation measures taken by the project to avoid, minimize, and mitigate those impacts. Use of in-season photographs also would be beneficial in illustrating the condition of the local habitat. We appreciate your efforts to ensure the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Thank you for contacting us and please let me know if you have any further questions. George L. San Miguel Wildlife Biologist Colorado Ecological Services Field Office US Fish & Wildlife Service 134 Union Blvd., Suite 670 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 (303)236-4752 George_SanMiguel@FWS.gov |
5/14/2021 9:42:34 AM | |
|
EPC Stormwater Review
5/12/2021 10:19:06 AM |
Review 2: Per previous review comment: EPC Stormwater does not have any comments on any of the uploaded documents. Thanks. Reviewed by: Glenn Reese, P.E. Stormwater Engineer I glennreese@elpasoco.com |
5/12/2021 10:19:06 AM | |
|
Mountain View Electric Association, Inc.
5/11/2021 4:05:33 PM |
Mountain View Electric Association (MVEA) has no objections to current plan. | 5/11/2021 4:05:33 PM | |
|
RBD Floodplain
5/6/2021 11:55:06 AM |
Reviewing the subject report, how did we end up with a rise if the abutments are outside the floodplain? FEMA is very strict on the no-rise. Locally we do not have any latitude to allow to .14ft rise mentioned can you modify the design to eliminate it ? Also please sign and stamp the revised report |
5/6/2021 11:55:06 AM | |
|
Traffic Review Consultant
3/8/2021 10:47:43 AM |
Comments uploaded to Bluebeam session. Note that some bridge information was not included in this submittal. | 3/8/2021 10:47:43 AM | |
|
PCD Project Manager
3/5/2021 7:17:59 AM |
Please submit the missing documents and address the current comments. Thank you. If there are questions, please contact staff for a review comment meeting. Please provide a response to the USFW comments. |
3/5/2021 7:17:59 AM | |
| View |
PCD Engineering Division
3/4/2021 5:18:50 PM |
Review 1: Substructure Plans_r1 | 3/4/2021 5:18:50 PM |
| View |
PCD Engineering Division
3/4/2021 5:18:09 PM |
Review 1 redlines: Contech Superstructure Plans | 3/4/2021 5:18:09 PM |
| View |
PCD Engineering Division
3/4/2021 5:25:15 PM |
Attached is the review 1 comment letter. Per the letter submit the following documents: Gilbert LaForce, PE gilbertlaforce@elpasoco.com |
3/4/2021 5:25:15 PM |
|
Mountain View Electric Association, Inc.
2/25/2021 5:53:25 PM |
Mountain View Electric Association (MVEA) has no objections to current plan. | 2/25/2021 5:53:25 PM | |
|
Tri-Lakes-Monument Fire Protection District
2/24/2021 3:06:49 PM |
We have discussed our concerns with Classic and they have assured us that the bridge weight limits will accommodate our fire appratus. No other concerns. JCB | 2/24/2021 3:06:49 PM | |
|
EPC Stormwater Review
2/23/2021 12:22:05 PM |
Review 1: EPC Stormwater does not have any comments on any of the uploaded documents. Thanks. Reviewed by: Glenn Reese, P.E. Stormwater Engineer I glennreese@elpasoco.com |
2/23/2021 12:22:05 PM | |
| View |
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
2/12/2021 2:51:28 PM |
2/12/2021 2:51:28 PM | |
| View |
EPC Environmental Services
2/4/2021 3:45:16 PM |
2/4/2021 3:45:16 PM | |
|
RBD Floodplain
2/2/2021 4:36:48 PM |
need a less than one foot rise certification per 44CFR60.3(c)(10) Require until a regulatory floodway is designated, that no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within Zones A1-30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community. |
2/2/2021 4:36:48 PM |
EDARP