Laserfiche WebLink
and Room#2 openings. Current calculations for backfill adit closure are detailed <br /> in the attached hand drawn schematic, pages 6 and 7, as well as the bulleted list <br /> below. <br /> c. DRMS Response 4: The Division acknowledges the Operator is now planning to <br /> backfill the Room#1 and Room #2 Adit with rockfill. To clarify, the "Adit <br /> Backfilling—Rockfill" is described on page 2-2 (page 36 of PDF) of the General <br /> Bid Specification Documents, dated March 2009. However, please clarify, page <br /> 132 of the PDF copy of this document is the Standard Drawing No. 12 for <br /> Concrete Block Bulkhead Seal Closure which is a different closure method than <br /> currently proposed? <br /> d. GLA Response 4: To clarify, the procedure to be utilized—2.5.2 Adit Backfilling <br /> —Rockfill —is detailed on page 37 of 132 (PDF pages) and page 2-2 of the DRMS <br /> General Bid Specification Guide, March 2009 edition. Page 36 of 132 (2-1) <br /> begins the chapter on Adit backfill while page 37 (2-2) details the specific <br /> proposed mechanism of rockfill. In response to DRMS Response 4, page 132 of <br /> the PDF copy does appear to contain Standard Drawing No. 12 for Concrete <br /> Block Bulkhead Seal Closure; however, this type of closure does NOT apply here <br /> and was never proposed. The page value 132 was included in GLA Response 3 <br /> simply to clarify how many pages were present in the PDF utilized; the potential <br /> source of confusion: 36/132 should be interpreted as "page 36 of 132 pages." <br /> 9. The Division has conducted a reclamation cost estimate for the site and included the cost <br /> for installing three grated adit closures with doors for access. These costs are based on <br /> costs incurred by the Division's Inactive Mine Program for closing similar adits. The cost <br /> estimate included with the application did not take account of a cost for spreading soil <br /> material or conducting revegetation. The attached estimate includes costs for these tasks. <br /> a. DRMS Response 3: A new reclamation cost estimate is enclosed. Please <br /> indicated is the applicant concurs with the estimate. <br /> b. GLA Response 3: See response to Rule 6.3.4 Exhibit D—Reclamation Plan#8 <br /> above for explanation of Adit backfilling—Rockfill cost estimate for two adits. <br /> c. DRMS Response: Based on the Geotechnical Analysis, it appears the applicant <br /> now intends to move forward with the surface quarry operation. Given this, the <br /> Division has re-evaluated the reclamation cost estimate to account for the surface <br /> quarry operation and included the adit closure costs submitted with your response <br /> letter. The cost estimate is enclosed for your review. Please let me know if the <br /> applicant concurs with the estimate. <br /> d. GLA Response 4: The applicant concurs with the cost estimate. <br /> Rule 6.5—Geotechnical Stability Exhibit <br /> 16. Page 67 of the stability analysis indicates an area of potential failure was estimated for <br /> the combination of Joint Orientation 6 and 7. The report shows an area where <br /> stabilization may become necessary if the excavation were extended in that direction. <br /> Please depict the location of this area on the Exhibit E-1 map. If this area will eventually <br /> be mined pleased indicate how this area will be stabilized to prevent failure or otherwise <br /> mitigated. <br />