My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-07-23_REVISION - C1981019
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2015-07-23_REVISION - C1981019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:09:20 PM
Creation date
7/27/2015 7:20:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
7/23/2015
Doc Name
Adequacy Review
From
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR105
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
Mr. Rob Zuber <br />July 21, 2015 <br />Page 3 <br />make no sense in terms of topography and drainage pattern. Please account for <br />topography in your delineations. <br />Response: During a meeting with Mr. Rob Zuber on June 24, 2015, it was decided that <br />both the ditch model and the pond model would use the identical watershed boundaries <br />and revised SEDCAD modeling. Additionally, draft versions of revised watersheds and <br />associated modeling were submitted to Mr. Rob Zuber for review by email on July 1, <br />2015. Included with this response package are the same materials that were included in <br />the July 1, 2015 email. Both the Streeter Gulch Ditch model (presented in Volume 2C) <br />and the Streeter Pond model (presented in Volume 2D) have been revised so that the <br />watersheds more closely follow the topography. <br />d. Response Accepted. <br />e. The sub -watersheds are different at the south end. Please compare <br />Figure 1 in Exh. 7 -ST to Figure I in Exh. 7-14E. <br />Response: As noted above in the response to Question 18c, this comment has now been <br />addressed. Both figures use identical watershed boundaries. <br />f. Response Accepted. <br />g. Response Accepted. <br />h. Response Accepted. <br />Response Accepted. <br />j. Please compare the slope from the topography for subwatershed D in <br />Figure Exh. 7-14PP-8, which is approximately 3%, to the value in the SEDCAD <br />model (structure 22 on page Exh. 7 -PP -343), which is 33%. Please correct this <br />slope as needed. <br />Response: Structure 22, the area identified as subwatershed D is a 6.8 acre area <br />downstream of Stock Tank structure PD -1. It appears to be a horizontal distance of about <br />600 feet from structure PD -1 to the lower portion of the subwatershed near Station 9+00 <br />in Prospect Ditch. Over this distance, the elevation change is about 175 feet. Dividing <br />175 by 600 yields a representative slope of 29%, close to the 33% slope actually used in <br />the SEDCAD model. That being said, no changes have been made to the model as the <br />slopes are representative. <br />k. Response Accepted. <br />Response Accepted. <br />T <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.