My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR10278
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR10278
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:26:41 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:09:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1994082
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
3/14/1995
Doc Name
RESPONSE TO DMG 1/20/95 AND 1/24/95 ADEQUACY LETTERS
From
SCC
To
DMG
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.
/
27
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
<br />• information submitted to the Division on December 23, 1994. <br />Sediment yield is more sensitive to CN than particle size and <br />thus, the reason for a much higher sediment yield. <br />d. SCC added the .017 cfs in as baseflow. SCC came to the same <br />conclusion as CDMG, it did not make any difference. <br />39. SCC reran the pond design using the same two watersheds that <br />the Division used. The CN that the Division used for Pond l0 <br />for spoil was 85, while that used for Pond 11 was 94. SCC <br />used a CN of 85 for the design based on justification as noted <br />above. <br />40. The SEDCAD+ output for Pond 11 has calculated the peak <br />discharge to be 21.33 cfs going into the pond. The peak <br />discharge coming out of the pond has been reduced to 2.74 cfs. <br />The principal spillway for Pond 11 is a 12-inch diameter <br />trickle tube. The culvert crossing the road mentioned will be <br />` verified by SCC personnel in the field to determine its size <br />I and proximity to the spillway for Pond 11. Based on the above <br />facts, SCC does not feel that outflows from Pond 11 will <br />affect the performance of the road culvert. <br />41. A geotechnical evaluation was not conducted specifically for <br />the Pond 011 embankment area. Ground reconnaissance of the <br />embankment area did not show any signs of site specific <br />problems. The completion log from monitoring Well YGAL16 gave <br />an indication of the subsurface conditions as well as depth to <br />ground water (6970 msl). Additional investigation was not <br />warranted at this time. <br />42. The statements made by Northwest Colorado Consultants were, by <br />their own admission, recommendations. Some of these <br />recommendations have been instituted and others are and will <br />be considered. The design and construction plans have been <br />revised to incorporate these recommendations. A blanket and <br />toe drain is the preferred alternative to lining the pond. In <br />fact, in this situation, the drainage system will actually <br />perform better than lining the pond. If the pond were lined, <br />seepage could still flow beneath the system. The drainage <br />system will allow the flow to be safely released at the toe of <br />the embankment without the hydrostatic pressure buildup that <br />might happen without the blanket drain. <br />43a. SCC revised the culvert designs using the 1.7 inch <br />precipitation value. In doing so, the curve numbers were also <br />reviewed. Justification for the weighted curve numbers is now <br />included for Road A. This information is in Tab 13, <br />Attachment 13-8. It should be pointed out that the headwater <br />to diameter ratios are all within acceptable limits. <br />Culvert's YA-6, due to the large drainage area, have been <br />conservatively sized to safely pass the flow as a result of <br />• the 25-yr, 24-hr storm. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.