Laserfiche WebLink
Chris Gilbreath <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />ITEM 29. Response is adequate. <br /> <br />ITEM 30. Response is adequate. <br /> <br />ITEM 31. Response is adequate. <br /> <br />ITEM 32. Response is adequate. <br /> <br />ITEM 33. Response is adequate. <br /> <br />ITEM 34. Response is adequate. <br /> <br />ITEM 35. Response is adequate. <br /> <br />The Division is waiting for a response from Colowyo. <br />ITEM 36. <br /> <br />ITEM 37. Response is adequate. <br /> <br />The Division is waiting for a response from Colowyo. <br />ITEM 38. <br /> <br />ITEM 39. Response is adequate. <br /> <br />ITEM 40. Response is adequate. <br /> <br />ITEM 41. Response is adequate. <br /> <br />The Division is waiting for a response from Colowyo. <br />ITEM 42. <br /> <br /> <br />Items from Second Adequacy Letter <br /> <br />ITEM 43. Response is adequate. <br /> <br />ITEM 44. Response is adequate. <br /> <br /> <br />ITEM 45. Exhibit 7, Item 23 describes the worst case scenario (the “maximum configuration of the <br />temporary spoil pile”), but it does not give any reasoning why this is the worst case hydrologic condition. <br />When looking at Map 29, Spoil Grading, it appears that in the year 2040 there will be a large amount of <br />graded area with no vegetation (CN = 85) near the bottom of the watershed and also a large amount of <br /> If a SEDCAD <br />area near the bottom of the watershed that has only a year or two of vegetation growth. <br />analysis has been performed to illustrate that this scenario creates less runoff and sediment loading <br /> <br /> <br />