Laserfiche WebLink
Chris Gilbreath <br />Page 5 <br />Exhibit 23, Item 2 (geotechnical study) <br />ITEM 38. It appears that a different unit weight was used for south end of the fill. The unit weight used <br />for this analysis was 130 pcf compared to 110 pcf used in the analyses performed for the primary slope of <br />the spoil fill. Please provide the Division with an explanation for the change in unit weight for spoil or <br />provide a slope stability analysis using the correct unit weight. <br />Volume 22 <br />ITEM 39. Cross sections are not shown on Map 7A or apparently other maps. Please revise or clarify. <br />ITEM 40. Map 11B does not show geological cross sections, but other portions of the PAP (e.g., Figure <br />2.04.6) indicate that it should. Please revise or clarify. <br />ITEM 41. The title for Map I IB is different on the map versus in the TOC. Please revise or clarify. <br />ITEM 42. Please explain why some drainage areas on Map 41B do not correspond to the topography <br />(e.g., the west side of Bear Draw). <br />This concludes the list of items for this preliminary adequacy letter. If you have any questions, please contact <br />me at 303.866.3567 (extension 8113) or Rob.Zuber@state.co.us. <br />Sincerely, <br />Robert Zuber, P.E. <br />Environmental Protection Specialist II <br />