Laserfiche WebLink
17. The Division requests that an additional table be developed that <br />identifies, at a minimum, the permanent ditch name, riprap sizing, <br />bottom width, channel depth, "from" station, "to" station, calculated <br />peak discharge, and estimated maximum peak discharge that the channel <br />could handle given the proposed riprap size. <br />18. Monitoring of the permanent channels in the reclaimed area is not <br />currently included as a requirement of the annual rill and gully survey. <br />Please incorporate monitoring commitments in the rill and gully plan, or <br />permit text, to for reconstructed channels on a periodic basis and after <br />large storm events or snowmelt episodes. <br />19. The Division has seen numerous examples ofside-cutting of riprap <br />channels due to improper installation. Please incorporate a generalized <br />design cross-section that shows the planned installatiou of the riprap <br />channel to avoid or minimize side-cutting due to slope runoff adjacent to <br />the channel. <br />20. Please provide annotation of those channels that are permanent and those <br />that are temporary on Map 41 to avoid any potential confusion. <br />This concludes the third adequacy review for Colowyo's Technical Revision 63. Please <br />contact me at (303) 866-4929 if you have any questions or concerns regazding this <br />adequacy letter. <br />Sincerely, <br />James R. Stark <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />cc: Sandy Brown <br />Colowyo TR-63 6 December 2006 <br />Third Adequacy Review Page 3 <br />