Laserfiche WebLink
MAY 20, 201 1 <br />MAY DAY MINE — VARIANCE REQUEST St'BMI ! rA1. REVIEW <br />PAGE 3 OF 4 <br />3. The typical cross - sections show native soil at 14 inches below the proposed road surface. This is not <br />accurate. In many cases, native soil is more than 15 feet below the proposed road surface. <br />4. The typical cross - section references a geotechnical report. That report needs to be submitted. <br />5. In the plan and profile sheets, the existing ground is shown as that which is in place currently and does <br />not acknowledge that this ground is actually recently placed without compaction specifications or <br />testing. The plans and supporting documents need to address how the stability of the recently- installed <br />subgrade will be verified and certified and how parts that are found to be unstable will be removed and <br />handled. <br />6. The plans do not include specifications for materials handling, compaction, and geotechnical testing. <br />7. The plans do not show the cables installed to hold the retaining wall in place. The plans do not specify <br />whether the entire retaining wall will be removed or how the soil behind the retaining wall will be <br />managed when the cables and wall are removed. <br />8. On Sheet C4.12, the dark line at approximately Station 19 +00 is not identified. What is it? How is it to <br />be handled? <br />9. On Sheet C4.12, there is an existing culvert at approximately Station 19 +00 that is not shown. Critical <br />existing and proposed features need to be shown on each relevant sheet. <br />10. On Sheet C4.12, it is assumed the roadside ditch shown on the typical section outfalls on the west side <br />of the road near approximately Station 20 +50. The roadside ditch is shown to capture all water from <br />the road and will capture water from the outcrop west of the ditch. The amount of water needs to be <br />quantified and a designed outfall structure where the ditch ends is needed. <br />11. On Sheet C4.21, the existing CMP is shown to remain, but calculations are not provided justifying its <br />size. <br />12. For the cross - section sheets, the proposed road surface is not shown to meet the existing grade in all <br />cases (ie: 11 +00, 12+00, 13 +00, 17 +00, etc) <br />13. For the cross - section sheets, new slopes appear to cut through the rock outcrop west of the access road <br />in some cases (ie: 17 +00, 18 +00). Existing and proposed material specifications are needed. If rock is <br />to be removed, it appears blasting and explosive specifications may be needed as well. <br />14. For the cross - section sheets, the limits of wetlands need to be shown where relevant (ie: 18+00, 19 +00) <br />15. It is not clear how the fill at Stations 18 +00 and 19 +00 will be placed without impacting the wetlands. <br />These areas (and sensitive locations) needed to be thoroughly detailed with precise materials handling <br />instructions and specifications provided. <br />16. The road alignment on the east side of the bridge is not shown. Though reconstruction of this road is <br />not required or requested, its alignment and grades needs to be shown. it is understood that isolated <br />improvements may (but are not required to) be proposed to address some of the most significant safety <br />issues on the road. <br />In association with the plans and overall project, the following comments are offered: <br />1. It is not anticipated that high -load vehicles such as Fort Lewis Mesa's emergency vehicles and sanitary <br />pumping trucks will be able to handle the sustained 15% grades and hairpin curves existing and <br />proposed on the access road. For these vehicles to be removed from evaluation regarding adequacy of <br />the mine road, detailed plans and commitments for a Mine Rescue Team and a sanitary system at the <br />mill site need to be approved by Fort Lewis Mesa Fire District, the County, and San Juan Basin Health. <br />PLANNING; Dl 1 '.\R7 ; N11 NT • 970.382.6263 . • 1060 E. 2ND AvE. • DUR: \NGO, COLORADO • 81301 <br />