Laserfiche WebLink
?r <br />TR-23 2nd ADEQUACY REVIEW <br />1. a) Requested clarification was provided; Figure 2.2-6A is to be removed <br />from the permit. Item Resolved. <br />b) Amended Figure 2.2-7A was further amended as requested. Item <br />Resolved. <br />C) Section 3.3.1 narrative was appropriately updated. Item Resolved. <br />d) Section 3.3.2 narrative was appropriately updated. Item Resolved. <br />e) Section 3.3.3 narrative was appropriately updated. Item Resolved. <br />f) Updated Section 3.3.4 describes the permanent channels constructed <br />during the 2007 reclamation project, and references the revised stable channel <br />design criteria of Table 3.9-3, which reflects the "as-built" variations associated <br />with the channels. Item Resolved. <br />g) Figure 3.1-8A was updated in response to Division request, but further <br />clarification and modification appears to be warranted. In particular, Sta. 42+00 <br />and Sta. 47+00 cross-sections both contain blue line segments labeled "Original <br />Ground Surface" inside the "2007 Reclamation Limit", that would appear to in <br />fact be remnant cut slopes, which should be delineated and labeled as such. <br />Please provide further updates to Figure 3.1-8A, as appropriate. <br />h) Figure 3.1-9A was properly updated. Item Resolved. <br />2. There still are inconsistencies noted in the ditch/channel specifications submitted <br />with this most recent package. Some of the problems noted are described below: <br />• Structure #11 is not defined in the 10-YR event SEDCAD run (page 32) <br />yet it is included on page 53 Structure Summary submitted with this recent <br />package. Further, the DRMS was previously instructed to remove the as- <br />constructed 10-YR event demonstration which contained a description of <br />Structure #11 as Ditch M. <br />• The revised Structure Summary page 33 is confusing because it shows <br />peak discharges apparently from the as-constructed SEDCAD <br />demonstrations which as previously mentioned DRMS has been instructed <br />to remove with the October 2007 submittal. It is unclear why this <br />information is shown here and which Subwatershed Hydrology Detail <br />supports the peak discharge and runoff information shown on revised page <br />33. <br />2