2011-06-23_REVISION - C1981019

• Permit No: C1981019
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 6/23/2011
• Doc Name: 2nd Adequacy Response ‎(Memo)‎
• From: Rob Zuber
• To: Janet Binns
• Type & Sequence: PR3
• Email Name: JHB
• Email Name: RDZ
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Rule 4.05.6 Sedimentation Ponds
1. No additional response was needed.
2. No additional response was needed.
3. No additional response was needed.
4. The response is adequate.
5. The response is adequate.
6. The response is inadequate. The information in the submittal shows connections
between channels but provides very little information on which sub - watersheds drain
to which channels, which is what was requested.
7. The response is adequate.
8. The response is adequate.
9. The responses are adequate.
10. The response is adequate.
11. One response is inadequate:
a) The response is adequate.
b) The response is inadequate. The map has not been revised.
c) The response is adequate.
d) The response is adequate.
e) The response is adequate. Despite comment that CCC disagrees with
DRMS, CN values for juniper on the map and in the model were correctly
changed to 73.
f) The response is adequate.
g) The response is adequate.
12. The response is adequate.
13. Not all responses are adequate:
3