Laserfiche WebLink
TR -115 Response 2 Cont. <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />DRMS Response: The Division has the following adequacy comments: <br />1.1. With regard to the Deal Diversion SEDCAD model, the Division must review all <br />variables used to derive the structure outputs. Based on the Division's review all <br />variables appear adequate for the diversion. However, the structure networking and <br />individual structures associated with the drainage of the watershed require clarification. <br />The SEDCAD model for the Deal Diversion identifies the watershed itself as structure #1 <br />and the Deal Diversion as structure #2. Based on proposed Map M51, the Deal Diversion <br />is identified as structure #1 flowing into a drainage labeled stru 1, sws 2, which flows into <br />Junction 1, which flows into the Deal 1 Pond. In order for the Deal Diversion design to <br />be adequate, every structure must have a designated down -gradient structure. Based on <br />the Deal Diversion design the diversion does not have a designated down -gradient <br />structure. Please provide clarification to the Deal Diversion model to discuss all <br />linkages and appropriate run-off calculations derived from the linkages to ensure <br />that the diversion is adequately designed and to account for the additional run-off to <br />all down -gradient structures. <br />Trapper Response- See next continent. <br />1.2. Based on the information in comment #1 above. A revised design for the Deal 1 Pond <br />which would include the Deal Diversion run-off, was not included in the TRI 15 <br />submittal. In order to ensure that the Deal 1 Pond will have the adequate capacity to <br />contain and treat the run-off or inflow entering the pond, the Deal 1 Pond design must <br />include the additional inflow resulting from the 23.74 acres of run-off from the deal <br />diversion. Please submit a revised Deal 1 Pond design that includes the additional <br />inflow as a result of the Deal Diversion SEDCAD model or provide the Division with <br />a justification that the current design is adequate. <br />Trapper Rcsponsc: hems 1.1 and 1.2, the design /or the deal diversion has now <br />been incorporated into the original Deal Gulch pond design for hath 10vr. 24hr. <br />and 25.vr. 24hr. ei,ents. This design includes the additional 6.94 acres' that will <br />he added to the Deal basin with the new dtl'ers on. This divorslon will he tied at <br />(Trade into the existing natural grass lined channel. Die prc,l,iott.slt, stthrttitted <br />Deal Gulch diversion ditch design nuts he discarded. <br />1.3. As noted in comment #1 above, the Division must review all variables used to derive the <br />structure outputs with the Deacon/Jeffway Diversion. Based on the Division's review all <br />variables appear adequate for the diversion. However, the structure networking and <br />individual structures associated with the drainage of the watershed and the resulting peak <br />discharge require clarification. The SEDCAD model for the Deacon/Jeffway Diversion <br />does not provide a description of the structures associated with the model. It appears that <br />the design includes two ponds as structures. These additional ponds are not noted in any <br />proposed or approved text or on any proposed or approved Maps. Based on the <br />Division's review of Map M51, the structure networking is as follows: South <br />Section=>Central Section=>North Section=>Junction 1=>East Flume Pond. No <br />additional Ponds are noted on Map M51. Please clarify the Deacon/Jeffway Diversion <br />model to identify the correct network structuring and the inclusion of the two ponds <br />identified as structures #8 and #10 within the SEDCAD model. <br />7'rapper Response: Sec next cotntnent. <br />