2015-08-07_REVISION - C1981019 (2)

Home Browse Search

0 Mr. Rob Zuber August 3, 2015 Page 11 submittal and the previous submittal are not significant, and do not change the channel design or riprap sizing requirements. The SEDCAD models for Reach 1 and Reach 2 are revised, and pages Exh. 7-25-11 through 84 are resubmitted at this time. Volume 20 Exhibit 23. Item 2 (eeotechnical stud ITEM 38. It appears that a different unit weight was used for south end of the fill. The unit weight used for this analysis was 130 pcf compared to 110 pcf used in the analyses performed for the primary slope of the spoil fill. Please provide the Division with an explanation for the change in unit weight for spoil or provide a slope stability analysis using the correct unit weight. Response: The response to this comment is still being prepared, and it will be subsequently addressed at a later date under a separate cover. Volume 22 ITEM 39. Cross sections are not shown on Map 7A or apparently other maps. Please revise or clarify. Response: The cross sections previously shown on Map l OB, approved under PR -03, have been removed from Map l OB and included on Map 7A. ITEM 40. Map I 1 B does not show geological cross sections, but other portions of the PAP (e.g., Figure 2.04.6) indicate that it should. Please revise or clarify. Response: The locations for the geologic cross sections presented in Figure 2.04.6 have been included on Map 7B. ITEM41. The title for Map IIB is different on the map versus in the TOC. Please revise or clary. Response: The title for Map 11B on List of Maps has been updated to be consistent with the Map 11 B title. ITEM 42. Please explain why some drainage areas on Map 41B do not correspond to the topography (e.g., the west side of Bear Draw). Response: The response to this comment is still being prepared, and it will be subsequently addressed at a later date under a separate cover.