Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Wally Erickson 4 March 7, 2011 <br />Review of Access Road Geotechnical Stability File No. M-1981-185 <br />10. In the Retaining Walls section (Section 4) of the Access Repair & Maintenance plan the Applicant <br />states, the roadway subgrade will be reestablished so that roadway grades are not steeper than 18 <br />percent. The Sakura engineering report submitted in the application package indicates roadway <br />grades of 12 percent (Sheet 4 of 16). Please explain this discrepancy. <br />11. The Applicant states, fill will be placed in thin layers. Please clarify this statement and provide <br />depth specifications for the retaining wall fill. <br />12. The Applicant states, fill will be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content. Please <br />provide a moisture conditioning range for the retaining wall fill. <br />13. The Applicant states, fill will be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM <br />D1557-02. The Division would require compaction to at least 95 percent utilizing ASTM D1557-09. <br />Please commit to the Division's requirements for fill compaction and revise Attachment 6.5-2. <br />14. Please provide additional information and specifications for the proposed Hilfiker or Gabion wall <br />retaining structures, including typical drawings, for Division review. <br />15. The Applicant must provide the Division with a detailed work plan, as requested in the previous <br />Geotechnical review memos, for the proposed retaining walls construction. The required work <br />plan must include a Quality Assurance/Quality Control program. <br />16. In the Cuts, Fills, Retaining Walls and Reclamation section (Section 7) of the Access Repair & <br />Maintenance plan the Applicant states, road grades between 2+00 to 4+80, (Attachment A 2 - <br />Sakura Engineering -Sheet 3 of 16) are approximately 12% and in one section road grades are up <br />to 18%. This statement is not consistent with previous statements by the Applicant and Sakura <br />Engineering - Sheet 3 of 16 submitted with the conversion application. Please explain these <br />discrepancies and revise the application accordingly. <br />17. In the Cuts, Fills, Retaining Walls and Reclamation section (Section 7) of the Access Repair & <br />Maintenance plan the Applicant states they will complete retaining wall(s) as designed <br />(Attachment A 2 - Sakura Engineering - Sheet 5 of 16 August 3, 2010). The Division did not <br />receive Sakura Engineering drawings dated August 3, 2010. Please clarify whether the reference <br />to August 3, 2010 is a typographic error or provide the Sakura drawing dated August 3, 2010. <br />18. The Applicant references three adequacy review memos written by Allen Sorenson dated June, 5, <br />2009, August 2, 2009 and October 28, 2010. The Applicant has not answered all the questions <br />contained in the memos to the satisfaction of the Division. Copies of the memos are attached. <br />Please review and answer all of the memo questions and concerns.