Laserfiche WebLink
C� <br />Mr. Robert Zuber, P.E. <br />September 19, 2014 <br />Page 2 <br />4. Appendix 2.05.3(4) -8 does not contain SEDCAD runs in the submittal. The table with ditch <br />design values in this appendix (Table 2.05.3(4) -8 -2) may contain errors, especially the flow <br />values. Please check these and explain why there are .several values for the north ditch. If the <br />different values are correct, a map should be provided to show how sub- watershed SW2 -C is <br />further divided. <br />Response: Appendix 2.05.3 (4) -8 has been resubmitted and the SEDCAD runs have been <br />included in this submittal. Table 2.05.3(4) -8 -2 has been completed updated and resubmitted. By <br />revising the entire table the errors in the flows values have been corrected. <br />5. Appendix 2.05.3(4) -9 does not contain SEDCAD runs in the submittal. <br />Response: Appendix 2.05.3 (4) -9 has been resubmitted and the SEDCAD runs have been <br />included in this submittal. <br />6 In the nionitoring table (Table 2 in Appendix 2.05.6(3) -3) SW -N212 can be listed as abandoned. <br />This was determined by the Division during a March 2014 inspection. We trust the judgment of <br />Tri -State in this platter. <br />Response: Table 2 in Appendix 2.05.6(3) -3 has been updated accordingly and included in this <br />submittal package. <br />The following observations regarding Map 2.05.3(4) -1 and Map 2.05.3(4) -9 need to be addressed <br />through explanation or revisions to the submittal. <br />a. PMT contour elevations are not provided, making the maps less informative. Please add <br />these or explain why the elevations are not labeled. <br />Response: Contour elevations have been added to the post -mine topography as <br />requested. <br />b. The arrow on Map 2.05.3(4) -1 implies a flow direction to the south rather than north to <br />the pond. Please correct this. <br />Response: The flow arrow has been corrected as requested. <br />c. Several of the culverts in the table on Map 2.05.3(1) -1 have been removed. Please <br />explain the reason.for this. Also, the size of culvert C -13 appears to be too small for a <br />flog+, of 35.23 efs. Please check the calculation for this pipe. <br />Response: The culverts that have been removed have not yet been installed and take into <br />consideration the applicants plan to revise the haul road and surface hydrology <br />configuration in an upcoming revision. Also, the calculations for culverts C -1 and C -13 <br />have been addressed in the TR -07 application which is currently in review. <br />AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY I AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER <br />A Touchstone Ener„y "Coo perarive <br />r <br />