Laserfiche WebLink
Whetstone <br />Associates <br />Technical Memorandum <br />permeability alluvial fans would occur throughout the storm event. The Paradox <br />Valley is a unique terrain not typically modeled by urban drainage planners, and <br />requires site - specific consideration of hydraulic processes. <br />6 Section 5. 0, Model Results. Please note that the DRMS is only interested in the runoff volume <br />from the l0 year, 24 -hour design storm for pond storage requirements and the peak flow <br />from the 100 year, 24 -hour design storm for channel and spillway capacity and stability <br />analyses. All hydrologic modeling other results are unnecessary. <br />Cotter response: Only results for the 10 -yr 24 -hr storm and 100 -yr 24 -hr storm are <br />presented in the revised DDP. <br />7. Section 5.3 and Table 21, pp. 47 -48. To reiterate the inadequacy of using "average cross <br />sections "for hydraulic analyses, the 1.55 ft stage for PitDivW (Table 21) does not have the I <br />ft of freeboard stated at the end of the paragraph on p. 47 in top cross section of Figure 14 <br />(p. 32). <br />Cotter response: The diversion channels have been evaluated based on reach - specific <br />gradients and channel geometries. The proposed improvements will result in a <br />consistent prismatic geometry for all or most engineered diversion channels. The scour <br />analysis and hydraulic capacity analysis was performed using the specific slope and <br />geometry for various segments within each reach, as shown in Section 5.4 of the revised <br />DDP. <br />8. Section 5.5, p. 49. The "negligible outflow "from Catchment OOIB -A South demonstrates <br />insufficient storage capacity requiring re- design. Please provide design drawings for both <br />Catchments 001 B -A South and 001 B -A North. <br />Cotter response: Design drawings for Catchment OO113-A North and OO111-A South are <br />provided as Plate 3 in the revised DDP. <br />9. Section 63.2 (p. 63) and Plate 2. According to Figure HS -I -Probable Range of Drop <br />Choices and Heights (UDFCD 2008) vertical drop structures are not acceptable if they are <br />over 3 feet in height. Please limit the vertical hard drop height to 3 feet or less. <br />Cotter response: Natural "drop structures" in the area exceed 7 feet in height on the <br />Monogram Mesa escarpment, as shown in Figure 35 (Page 64) of the original DDP. <br />Constructed drop structures for the Planned Pit Diversion East (PDEP) will be limited <br />to three feet, in accordance with Urban criteria, to the extent practical during <br />construction. The PDEP will be constructed in bedrock using excavators and heavy <br />equipment, however, blasting of bedrock is not planned. <br />10. Plates I through 4. Pursuant to Rule 6 4.21(10)(a) of Mineral Rules and Regulations of the <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Hard Rock, Metal, And Designated Mining <br />Operations, design specifications shall be certi red by a licensed professional engineer for all <br />Environmental Protection Facilities. Pursuant to Rule 3.2.3 of the Bylaws and Rules of The <br />(Colorado) State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers and Professional <br />4149A.140207 <br />