My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV01158
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV01158
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:58:47 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 8:50:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977210
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Name
MEMO SNYDER AMENDMENT HYDROLOGIC SUPPLEMENT
From
OBERING WURTH & ASSOC
Type & Sequence
AM3
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.
/
12
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
III'lllll!II"II'I~ Qbering, ~'Yurth & ~ssocia#es <br />Conaulting Civll Engineers ~ • ; %•,~ ~" <br />Registered Land Surveyors - <br />1015 Elkton brave •- Colorado Springs. Colorado 80907 • Phone (719) 53] •6200 <br />D1EM0: Snyder Amendment <br />H)'drologlc Supplement <br />June 'L0, 1989 ~' 3:10 A.A1. <br />Project Nu. 8900'L <br />I received a call from Sohn Doerfer at MLRD regardi[tg our submt[tal oC <br />the hydrologic supplemnnr., Ile had reviewed the study and found 1t to be <br />completa and responsive to tttelr hydrologic, concerns. Ile had the following <br />questions/comments. UberinC, worth & AssoclaLes' (OWA) responses are <br />lncludpd where appropriate. <br />1. The concept of oCf-channel silt retention as opposed to the multiple <br />o[t channel checks originally proposed seems approprtar.e 1tr this case <br />acrd tare revision to the original sub[nllLttl is accepLabie. <br />RFSpONSF,: The Operator agrees. <br />2. A sitnllar facility will be necessary for the Fltast: IV area[ when rnirtlt,g <br />occurs on t.itc other side oP the natural drainage. <br />kESYONSk:: 'fltis is outsJde of the amendment area and would he <br />addressed as a separate issue. <br />3. E'inal design as-built drawings will eventually be required for alt <br />proposed faclllt[es. - <br />kESI'ONSE: !t Js Lire Operator's intent to provide as-bttllt. drawings ae <br />indicated in the Suuuuary secliun on I'ugu I3. <br />4. Wftat is the reclamation plan for,ttie pond area? will it remain? If <br />so, ongoing maintenance will be required. if not, how wilt It t,c made <br />inoperative and reclaimed'f It could probably }rave t)te spillway graded <br />UUL, <br />RESPONSE: I defer this to Castle and/or Marlt NclCner. <br />fi. The time of concentration calculations for Subbasin 8-0 were not <br />lncludrd. Please provide r.his information. <br />ItF;SPONSE: 1l'c lnadvcrtentiy forgot Lhosc 1'lgures in our summary, a <br />new and complete summary sheet wilt Ge provided. <br />G. The R factor used 1n the Universal Snit-Loss Equation (LISLE) for our <br />cu[rtputations was 76, MLRD Is more used to seetttg a factor of 60 <br />used in computations and feel '15 is conservative. what is the source <br />of our number. <br />kt;SPUNSt;: we used the reference "truslon and Sudirncnt control In <br />Urbanizing Areas of Colorado", USllA, Soil Cor,servatlon Service, <br />April 4, 1979. figure 7 oR F•nge 'l'J indicates an "R" factor of 7b to <br />be approp[•iatc. n copy of this figure and the previous 1'agc Gti will <br />be yrovlded for Gtformatlon. <br />.: .;. <br />r` sti <br />;:~: <br />..~ ~. :, <br />;. ,r <br />~~.~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.