Laserfiche WebLink
e. During the November 12 meeting, Trapper indicated that the number of checkdams to <br />be installed within a reclaimed drainage may be different than what the model discussed <br />above indicates are needed based on whether or not dozer basins are installed within the <br />channel. The proposed drainage stabilization plan does not describe how Trapper will <br />determine the number of check dams will be installed if dozer basins will be used as a <br />substitute. Please add additional permit text, figures, tables etc. to demonstrate how this <br />will be accomplished. <br />Trapper Response to 23e: An example of the procedure used to determine reconstructed <br />drainage design parameters has been included on page 4 -1831 of section 4.8.1.3. Within <br />this example the steps used to find the design criteria of a drainage are detailed with a <br />generalized watershed and drainage scenario. The drainage design model not only <br />demonstrates the number of check dams required in a drainage, but it shows the required <br />storage that would be needed within a drainage depending on the watershed <br />characteristics of that example. Once the amount of total storage within the draiangeway <br />is determined, the required number of check dams and their capacity is found depending <br />on the average slope of the drainage. The total storage capacity is the key factor in this <br />determination, and can be used to also find the reduced number of check dams when a <br />known amount of storage has been included through the use of dozer basins. Their <br />increased storage value allows fewer check dams to be constructed, yet retain the design <br />storage capacity and flow diminishment of the drainage design. <br />f. Please incorporate additional permit text, tables and/or figures to describe how Trapper <br />will determine the number of dozer basins to be installed within a portion of reclaimed <br />drainage. <br />Trapper Response to 23f: Please see the above response. <br />g. During the November 12th meeting and previous meetings it has been discussed that <br />Trapper would submit documentation that reclaimed drainage channels have been <br />constructed and stabilized in accordance with the plan outlined in the permit by <br />submitting as- builts with the annual reclamation report. Please add language to section <br />4.8.1.3 of the permit committing to doing this. <br />Trapper Response to 23g: After further discussion with Mr. Ebert on March 18t'', an <br />approach to depicting as -built drainages and design criteria was developed. Language <br />has been added near the end of the section discussing the approach that will be taken each <br />year in the Annual Reclamation Report. Within the ARR, in Section 3.0 a table will be <br />developed that summarizes the watershed characteristics and the inputs used in the model <br />to develop the reconstructed drainage designs during that construction season. The <br />reconstructed sections of drainage will be depicted on Map 1 of the report. A diagram <br />will be included that shows the watershed area, and subsequent sub- divisions of that <br />watershed and the vegetative conditions within in them that dictates the curve numbers <br />used in the design. With this information and other references in the summary and the <br />maps concerning slopes, all inputs to the design may be confirned by the Division. <br />These inputs within the summary table will demonstrate the storage capacity needed <br />dependent upon the watershed characteristics, the check dams required, and/or the <br />amount of storage used in dozer basins that leads to the subsequent reduction in required <br />check dams. The summary can then be used to confirm the construction of the strictures <br />in the field, and the conditions they were designed for. <br />Page 13 <br />