Laserfiche WebLink
WL-PM-E/Letter to DRMS Kate Pickford: Subject: Adequacy Review, Cedar Point 1994-108 AM-01 <br />size). This material needs to be removed to improve the soil and allow for its proper cultivation. <br />While roots can probably be mulched together with vegetative material removed during <br />grubbing of the site (and used for reclamation), in some cases it makes more sense (as it does <br />with larger trees) to instead sell as firewood; larger materials (cobbles, rocks) make sense to <br />screen and use as any other pit run. <br />6. 1 assume this is a reference to the paragraph "Grading (3.1.50)) and Backfillinq <br />(3.1.5(2))" on page 20 in Exhibit E. The entire issue of 2:1 slopes around the edge of the area was <br />addressed at length in the review of the original application in 1994, and these 2:1 slopes were <br />approved at that time; this simply restates that approved slope. The entire purpose of the <br />steeper slope was to maximize the pasture that could be irrigated and used, and it was <br />understood that the steeper slope would NOT be able to be used effectively as pasture. That <br />has not changed. However, areas both above and below the 2:1 slopes can be used for <br />pasture in accordance with state standards; the use of 2:1 slopes maximizes those areas and <br />allows for improved irrigation, while still being suitable for incidental wildlife use (as approved by <br />the DOW and State Land Board in the original 1994 process). <br />7. 1 assume this is a reference to the paragraph "Reveaetation (3.1.10)" on page 24 in <br />Exhibit E, which states "...again to be determined by the owners at the time of reclamation, <br />upon advice of the Natural Resources Conservation District and County Extension Agent (see <br />Exhibits I and J)." This is not exactly the same thing as "seed mix ... will be determined at a <br />different date." As stated in Exhibit I (page 48), the seed mixes in Exhibit J (pages 54-55) are <br />based on NRCS recommendations in 2010; these recommendations (including which of the two <br />to be used) may change at various times. Noland Inc. will continue to follow the most recent <br />NRCS/Conservation District recommendations. Part of the reclamation process is to coordinate <br />with NRCS as reclamation proceeds. For reclamation done in 2010 (if any), one of these seed <br />mixs in Exhibit J will be used. It is assumed that the Division will use the more expensive of the two <br />seed mixes in Exhibit J (page 54) for bond calculations. Noland Inc. commits to notifying the <br />Division if NRCS recommends changes, so that bond calculations may be changed (if <br />necessary). <br />Thank you for your assistance in this; we look forward to your inspection and further comments as <br />appropriate. Please let me know if I need to elaborate any further on these responses. <br />Sincerely, <br />NathdrrX. Barton, CE, PE, DEE, Comptroller, <br />WASTELINE, INC. (Project Engineer) <br />Attachments: <br />1. Affidavit of publication and proofs of delivery/mailing <br />2. Revised Application Page 1. <br />PROJECT: 5043.2 Noland Inc. Cedar Point DRMS 3 September 2010, Page 2