Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Wally Erickson 3 April 28, 2011 <br />Wildcat CN-01 Geotechnical Adequacy Response Review File No. M-1981-185 <br />_Question #4 from the March 7 2011 memorandum <br />The Applicant states on page 4 of the Reclamation Plan, the access road reclamation area will <br />have a side slope not exceeding 1.5(H):1 (V) with the exception of the cut slope which will <br />remain at a slope of approximately 0.7:1. The Applicant states in the cutslope section of <br />Attachment 6.5-2 - Access Road Repairs and Maintenance, "...in the cut slope between Sta. <br />0+00 to 3+00. Slopes in this interval will be flatted to 1.5:1 using an excavator." Please <br />explain this discrepancy in the proposed slope for the cutslope section of the access road. <br />The Division will require these slopes be laid back a minimum to 1.25(H):1(V) as recommended <br />in the Trautner Geotech report to La Plata County. Please commit to resloping the cut slopes <br />per the Trautner specifications or 1.5(H):1 (V) as stated in the Reclamation Plan. <br />12. On page 18 in the Phase 1- Preliminary Construction and Reclamation Activities section, the <br />Applicant states the road construction work plan is summarized in Attachment 6.5-3. The <br />Division did not receive Attachment 6.5-3. Please provide the attachment. Additionally, the <br />statement of the work plan location contradicts the Applicant's comments regarding the work <br />plan location in the geotechnical response letter (Question #9 above) and the Mining Plan. <br />13. If the Applicant intended to refer the Division to Attachment 6.5.3 - Sakura Stability Report <br />submitted on November 10, 2010, the attachment does not provide a work plan. Please <br />explain this discrepancy and respond to the Division's adequacy questions pertaining to the <br />attachment (questions #19 through #23 in the March 7, 2011 Access Road memorandum). <br />6.5 Geotechnical Stability-Attachment E-8 <br />14. In the New Access Road-road stability including cut slope section, the Applicant states the <br />construction work plan including erosion and sedimentation BMPs are summarized in <br />Attachment 6.5.2. The Division did not receive Attachment 6.5.2. Please provide the <br />attachment. <br />15. If the Applicant intended to reference Attachment 6.5-2 dated September 21, 2010 in <br />Question #13 above, the attachment does not provide a work plan. Please explain this <br />discrepancy and respond to the Division's adequacy questions pertaining to the attachment <br />(questions #5 through #18 in the March 7, 2011 Access Road memorandum). <br />16. In the New Access Road-road stability including cut slope section, the Applicant states the <br />New Access Road (CLC, 2011) has been designed to carry loads up to 25 tons. Please provide <br />documentation for this statement. <br />17. In the New Access Road-road stability including cut slope section, the Applicant states <br />recommendations resulting from a geotechnical evaluation of access road stability performed