Laserfiche WebLink
AUGUST 8, 2011 <br />MAY DAY MINE CLASS II — SUBMITTAL 2 REVIEW <br />PAGE 10 OF 15 <br />b. Pages 5, 6, and 7 state the proposed road improvements are stable, protect the environment, <br />and meet engineering concerns. Note that the current submittals do not demonstrate an <br />acceptable road design. This letter and previous letters outline issues remaining to be <br />resolved. <br />c. Pages 6 and 8 that a water balance has been submitted and that Wildcat will comply with <br />LPC "pumping test results" and SEO (ie: DOWR) water right stipulations. Note that <br />neither a water balance nor an aquifer pump test has been received. The SEO has stated <br />that one of the two water rights cannot be exercised until an augmentation plan and well <br />permit are obtained by the applicant. <br />IV. Submittals Requested in Previous Reviews for Road Variance (and still needed) <br />Clarifying notes based on current review are provided in italics. <br />A. Construction Plans for the full access road identifying intended uses of the access road. The Plans <br />currently submitted need to revised to address the following items, subject to review and additional <br />comments: <br />1. The Plans shall include detailed topography, road plans and profile, road cross - sections, <br />drainage, material specifications, structural specifications, materials and compaction testing, <br />and other critical design components. <br />2. The plans shall demonstrate the road is safe for its intended uses and that it is stable and not a <br />threat to adjacent wetlands. The plans need to identify the intended vehicles and loads for <br />which the road is designed. <br />3. The plans shall be sealed by the Engineer who prepared or oversaw the preparation of the plans <br />and who is registered as a Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado. <br />4. The plans need to show existing land features and existing and proposed improvements. This <br />includes limits of wetlands area, location and facilities on the proposed staging areas. <br />Wetlands should be shown on each plan and profile sheet where wetlands occur. <br />5. The typical cross - sections show native soil at 14 inches below the proposed road surface. This <br />is not accurate. In many cases, native soil is more than 15 feet below the proposed road <br />surface. <br />6. The typical cross - section references a geotechnical report, which needs to be identified by title, <br />date, engineering firm, and certifying engineer. That report needs to be submitted. <br />7. In the plan and profile sheets, the existing ground is shown as that which is in place currently <br />and does not acknowledge that this ground is actually recently placed without compaction <br />specifications or testing. The plans and supporting documents need to address how the <br />stability of the recently - installed subgrade will be verified and certified and how parts that are <br />found to be unstable will be removed and handled. <br />8. The plans do not include specifications for materials handling, compaction, and geotechnical <br />testing. <br />9. The plans do not show the cables installed to hold the retaining wall in place. The plans do not <br />specify whether the entire retaining wall will be removed or how the soil behind the retaining <br />wall will be managed when the cables and wall are removed. <br />10. On Sheet C4.12, the dark line at approximately Station 19 +00 is not identified. What is it? <br />How is it to be handled? <br />PLANNING DEPARTMENT • 970.382.6263. • 1060 E. 2ND AvE. • DURANGO, COLORADO • 81301 <br />