Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Mr. Zach Trujillo <br />December 17, 2015 <br />Page 3 <br />ITEM 27. <br />Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 28. <br />Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 29. <br />Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 30. <br />Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 31. <br />Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 32. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 33. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 34. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 35. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 36. It appears on the maps that large areas that are within the tie-in boundary (presumed <br />to be same as disturbance boundary) do not drain to a pond This includes the west side of the <br />pit, in Sections 2, 3, and 34. Please explain this in light of 4.05.5(1) and other relevant rules. <br />Response: A response to this comment was submitted on November 20, 2015. <br />ITEM 37. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 38. It appears that a different unit weight was used for south end of the fill. The unit <br />weight used for this analysis was 130 pef compared to 110 pcf used in the analyses performed <br />for the primary slope of the spoil fill. Please provide the Division with an explanation for the <br />change in unit weight for spoil or provide a slope stability analysis using the correct unit weight. <br />Response: A response to this comment was submitted on November 20, 2015, <br />ITEM 39. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 40. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 41. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 42. Please explain why some drainage areas on Map 41B do not correspond to the <br />topography (e.g., the west side of Bear Draw). <br />A T)uchstune Enervv'Cooperan e `•r <br />