My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-07-09_REVISION - C1981019 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2015-07-09_REVISION - C1981019 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:09:04 PM
Creation date
7/9/2015 9:19:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
7/9/2015
Doc Name
Adequacy Letter
From
DRMS
To
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Assoc
Type & Sequence
PR4
Email Name
RDZ
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Chris Gilbreath <br />Page 4 <br />ITEM 28. Regarding the Section 25 Pond, Table 1 has an error for peak discharge for emergency <br />spillway. Also, the elevation at the bottom of the primary spillway (7050.0) is an error. Please address <br />these errors. <br />ITEM 29. On Figure C 1 (and other similar figures), what is the pink line? It is not in legends. <br />ITEM 30. Drainage area to Lower D-2 Ditch: why does it not include a portion of the 55.75 acre sub - <br />watershed? Per the model, all of this reports to D-1 Lower Ditch. Please explain why because this does <br />not look correct per the topography. <br />Exhibit 7-23, Part D <br />ITEM 31. Page D-2 is missing. Please provide this missing page. <br />ITEM 32. In Figures D1 and D2, the construction notes state that the cut and fill of the sediment pond <br />access roads will have Ih:Iv slopes. However, Rule 4.03.2(3)(e)(viii) states: "Embankment slopes shall <br />not be steeper than 1.5h:Iv, except that if the embankment material is a minimum of 85 percent rock, <br />slopes shall not be steeper than 1.35h:Iv if it has been demonstrated to the Division that embankment <br />stability will result." Please revise the access road embankment slope to meet the minimum criteria of <br />this rule. <br />Exhibit 7-23_ Part G <br />ITEM33. Grass filter inputs in SEDCAD for roughness (0.0121) and spacing (0.67') do not match the <br />introductory text. Please address this apparent error. <br />ITEM 34. Please explain the selected stiffness factor of 20 N -sq in. It may be an order of magnitude <br />high. <br />ITEM 35. BMPs (e.g., silt fence) will be needed prior to grass establishment. This should be discussed <br />in text. <br />Exhibit7, Item 25 <br />ITEM 36. It appears on the maps that large areas that are within the tie-in boundary (presumed to be <br />same as disturbance boundary) do not drain to a pond. This includes the west side of the pit, in Sections <br />2, 3, and 34. Please explain this in light of 4.05.5(1) and other relevant rules. <br />ITEM 37. The Division has observed that the modeled flows in the SEDCAD submittal in PR -04 for the <br />reaches in Little Collom are much smaller than the flows in PR -03, despite the fact that watershed areas <br />are approximately the same and slopes are comparable. Please explain what caused these significant <br />decreases in flows. <br />Volume 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.