Laserfiche WebLink
Chris Gilbreath <br />Page 2 <br />11 August 2015 <br />12. Response Accepted. <br />Rule 3.02.2 — Determination of Performance Bond <br />13. The Division has completed the portion of the technical adequacy that would potentially <br />change the reclamation cost estimate. We will start to calculate the new estimate for TR - <br />105. <br />Rules 4.13 and 4.14 — Contemporaneous Reclamation and Backfilline and Gradine <br />14. Response Accepted. <br />15. Response Accepted. <br />16. Response Accepted. <br />Rule 4.27 — Operations on Steep Slopes <br />17. Response Accepted. <br />Rule 4.05 — Hydrologic Balance <br />18. The following items are related to the SEDCAD modeling provided in Exhibit 7. <br />a. Response Accepted. <br />b. Response Accepted. <br />c. The sub -watersheds are now delineated in a more conventional way and are acceptable <br />to the Division. Some other items still need to be addressed in the Streeter ditch and <br />pond models, as follows. <br />i. In Table 1 (page Exh. 7-14-6) it appears that the design widths of the lower <br />segments of Streeter Gulch Ditch have doubled in size. Where they over - <br />constructed before? Please explain. <br />ii. Also in Table 1, please check the values for the SW and SE tributaries and <br />explain the following. The flows are significantly lower than the values in the <br />SEDCAD runs. Also, the slopes are very different between the two tributaries, <br />but this seems incorrect based on the topography of the map. <br />iii. On the maps with Streeter watersheds (Figures 1 and 2 in Exh. 7-14E), explain <br />why Stockpond 1 moved from station 82+00 to station 87+00. <br />iv. In Table 6, the sediment pond summary in Volume 21), some items under <br />Streeter Pond require explanation. Why did the amount of undisturbed area <br />change (almost doubled)? Why did the base rate of flow change from 0.00 to <br />