Laserfiche WebLink
Whetstone <br />Associates <br />Technical Memorandum <br />Figure 1. Map Showing Potential Areas of Runoff Contribution to the UDS and MDS <br />from the Adjacent Sub -Basin <br />7. Page 13, Figure 2. Please identify sub -basin MFA and make similar corrections to sub - <br />basins NIC and NID as discussed in Comment 6 <br />Cotter response: The MFA sub -basin has been labeled on Figure 2 of the revised DDP. <br />The additional 0.033 acres and 0.079 acres that might be captured by the UDS and <br />MDS extensions into the adjacent sub -basin are also shown in the revised DDP. <br />8. Page 16, Table 10. In reference to Comment 4, the Manning's n values used for reach <br />routing, appears to be what the DRMS would consider capacity roughness values. For long <br />routing reaches, this can result in significant peak flow attenuation when compared to <br />routing with stability roughness values. The WinTR -55 results indicate no significant <br />attenuation, likely due to the short reach lengths. The routing reach roughness values should <br />reflect stability roughness values for future analyses. No action is necessary for this <br />submittal. <br />Cotter response: Comment noted. <br />9. Page 16, Section 4.5.2. Section 4.5.1 states the Stormwater and sediment retention pond <br />(SWRP) is 13.3 feet deep. Please review the Colorado Office of the Sate Engineer (OSE) <br />Dam Safety Rules (specifically Rule 4.2.5) to determine if the SWRP should be under <br />jurisdiction of the OSE, based on the 10 foot height limit. Provide the DRMS with a response <br />as to why or why not the SWRP is jurisdictional. <br />Cotter response: The SWRP was surveyed on May 28, 2013 and the surveyed contours <br />are shown in Figure 2. The pond is routinely maintained, and the fine sediment that <br />collects in the pond is regularly removed to preserve storage capacity. As of May 28, <br />4148A.131030 5 <br />