My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-09-09_REVISION - M1981185 (43)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1981185
>
2011-09-09_REVISION - M1981185 (43)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:58:17 PM
Creation date
9/12/2011 12:15:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981185
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
9/9/2011
Doc Name
Response to Fifth Adequacy Letter
From
R Squared, Inc.
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
CN1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Wallace H. Erickson <br />Response to August 22, 2011 Hays Memorandum <br />September 9, 2011 <br />Page 14 <br />6. PVI = Point of Vertical Inflection <br />7. A.D. = Algebraic Difference (between the slope coming in and the slope <br />leaving) <br />8. K = Rate of vertical curvature (K= Length of Curve /A.D.) <br />6.4.5 Exhibit E — Reclamation Plan <br />Adequacy Issue No. 27. <br />In the Access Easement Closure section the Applicant states the access road reclamation <br />area will have a side slope not exceeding 1.5(11):1(V) with the exception of the cut slope <br />which will remain at a slope of approximately 0.7:1. In the Final Grading section the <br />Applicant states the maximum graded slope will be 1.5:1 unless otherwise noted and <br />evaluated. Please provide a stability analysis evaluation in accordance with Rule 6.5 <br />demonstrating the long term stability of the proposed 0.7:1 slope. <br />Response to Adequacy Issue No. 27. <br />See supra Response to Adequacy Issue No. 4.a. Wildcat will submit any <br />revisions to its proposed Reclamation Plan to address slope stability matters, as <br />necessary, through the Technical Revision or Amendment process. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 28. <br />Regarding Question #27 above, please explain and provide justification for why the cut <br />slope will not be backfilled by the Applicant at the conclusion of the project as part of <br />final reclamation. <br />Response to Adequacy Issue No. 28. <br />Where possible, Wildcat used a 2:1 slope. However, in situations where the grading <br />was particularly steep, the 2:1 slope would catch below the top of the originally proposed <br />grading. Given the constraints on the bottom of the slopes, Wildcat determined it would be <br />better to leave steep slopes than to damage existing wetlands. See also Response to <br />Adequacy Issue No. 27. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 29. <br />Please clarify if the proposed gabion retaining structure will remain after reclamation. <br />Response to Adequacy Issue No. 29. <br />Wildcat will clarify the Access Easement Closure section at Pages 4 and 5 of the <br />Reclamation Plan by adding a bullet to indicate road reclamation activities will include: <br />DEN 97, 591, 784v1 9 -941 <br />GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP • ATTORNEYS AT LAW • WWW.GTLAW.COM <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.