Laserfiche WebLink
Reference is made to the documents showing right to enter BLM-managed lands, which are to be submitted separately, <br />but which have; not been received yet by this office. Evidence for the right-of-entry onto BLM-managed lands in <br />Sections 4 and 9 must be provided by the decision date. <br />The BLM contract provided only covers lands in Sections 3 and 10, which does not cover the areas to be added under <br />this amendment. As stated above, evidence for the right-of-entry must be provided by the decision date. <br />Exhibit R - Proof of Filing with County Clerk (Rule 6 4 18) <br />Thank you for the receipt you submitted on October 30, 2009 for filing a copy of the last submittal. Please file a copy <br />of your next submittal, and provide a receipt therefor. (Note: there is no requirement to file additional materials with <br />the conservation district or other agencies.) <br />Geotechnical Stability Exhibit (Rule 6.4.20) <br />This exhibit is not adequate. The maps provided include much information, but it is not well depicted, and contributes <br />to their unintelligibility. The two maps, at the very least, should be enlarged for clarity, and the depictions of the <br />various features separated onto additional sheets. Additional supporting' information is needed for certain issues <br />identified below. For example, Map GTSC-1 should clarify or revise the following features: <br />The topographic contours are different colors, but they are not all spatially registered with each other (the red contours <br />are shifted about 60 feet to the southwest). This should be corrected. <br />The cross section of the slope and road should include either a horizontal and vertical scale, or a slope. gradient. <br />The cross section depicts native hill slope material and fill material, as well as "geogrid reinforcing" placed within the <br />fill material at three-foot vertical intervals. No explanation is given for anchoring the geogrid to the native material or <br />other means of stabilizing the fill. <br />The means of reducing instability of the steep slopes is described as eliminating runon from upslope and breaking up <br />long slopes, though there is no detail provided as a cross section. Also, the Division believes that it is not feasible to <br />mechanically or manually furrow a 1:1 slope, nor to revegetate such slope. Please provide supporting information, or <br />revise the final maximum slope gradient and means of stabilizing it. <br />Locations for siltation basins are shown, but no detail of the structures is given. If these are to be part of the <br />reclamation, they should be described in better detail. <br />Map GTSC-2 contains the same problem as Map GTSC-1, with poorly registered topographic contours, which should <br />be corrected. <br />The map mentions placement of geonet fabric on steep slopes to reduce erosion and enhance vegetation, but does not <br />include adequate: or clear description of the fabric, how it is anchored, nor depict its proposed locations. <br />The locations shown for sediment basins and silt fences appear appropriate, though future runoff and drainage patterns <br />will dictate exact placement. These features will require maintenance, whether they are temporary or permanent. <br />Please provide more information about the detention structure, whether it will include an armored spillway, end design <br />sizing. If these items are already included in a WQCD Stormwater Management Plan, a copy of the plan may be <br />provided as a response. <br />The rationale for leaving steeply sloped native materials, based on long existing cut slopes in similar materials (such as <br />along Farmington hill) does not account for the continual maintenance need of removing raveled and sloughed <br />materials from the borrow ditch and road shoulder. It should also be pointed out that there are abundant examples of