Laserfiche WebLink
Response to Preliminary and Secondary Issues April 28, 2011 <br />18, 2011) is labeled "Exhibit A - Legal Description" and does not discuss the access road. Please <br />clarify what May 29, 2010 memo the Applicant is referring to and explain the "adopted by <br />reference" comment. <br />Response #7- Geotechnical Stability Response to DRMS-April 18, 2011 Comments <br />The "adopted by reference" is related to the previous memos generated by Mr. Allen <br />Sorenson whereby Wildcat has incor orated his su estions in the Road Desi n and work <br />plan- <br />Adequacy issue #8 Geotechnical Stability Response to DRMS April 18, 2011 Comments <br />If the Applicant intended to refer the Division to the R Squared report dated May 29, 2010 in <br />Question #7 above, please respond to questions #24 through #27 from the March 7, 2011 <br />memorandum. <br />Response #8 Geotechnical Stability Response to DRMS-April 18, 2011 Comments <br />Responses to the June 4 and June 7, 2010 memos are summarized in the Construction <br />Activities Work Plan. specific responses b comment number are summarized below: <br />The following summarizes the responses to questions #24 through #27 from the <br />March 7, 2011 memorandum: <br />' <br />Question #24 March 7, 2011 Peter Hays, Tim Cazier <br />The Applicant resubmitted the Geotechnical Reconnaissance report prepared by R Squared, <br />dated May 29 2010 with the conversion CN-01 a lication Division sta reviousl reviewed <br />the report as part ofthe Idaho Mine permit application File No M-2010-003, and issued review <br />memos dated June 4 and June 7 2010. The Applicant has not res onded to the Division's <br />questions from these memos Copies ofthe memos are attached Please respond to the Division's <br />adequacy questions from the June 4 and June 7 2010 memos <br />Response #24 March 7, 2011 Peter Hays Tim Cazier <br />Comment noted. The required degree o soil compaction and maximum allowable lift <br />thickness specified by DRUS has been included in the Construction Work Plan. We <br />respectfully disagree with the DRMI'll requirement of the flattening slopes to the degree <br />identified. Trautner states that the current road cut configuration is not stable at this location <br />Figure 1 shows a cross section with an apparent factor ofsafety of 0 762 Earlier in the <br />report, Trautner states that a factor of safety less than one indicates movement is occurring <br />Since movement is not occurrin the actor o sae must be greater than 1 or the ratio 0 <br />resisting force to driving force must A? over 30 percent higher than calculated <br />Response-Second and Third Geotechnical Issues 7 <br />5/27/2011