Laserfiche WebLink
Page 5 of 5 <br />road no. 1 that are presented in Exhibit 9 of Volume II. These four designs are not <br />needed and they can be omitted if CAM wishes. <br />The Division has no further concerns. In the sediment control plan for haul road no. 1, <br />excelsior logs will be used. The Division asked that Map 16 and page 2.05 -22 be revised <br />to reflect this new plan. In the submittal dated August 19, 2011, CAM revised Maps 15 <br />and 16 and permit text page 2.05 -23 accordingly. <br />49A. As required under Rule 4.03.1(4)(e), please provide designs which show that the bridge <br />can safely pass the runoff from a 100 year -24 hour precipitation event. <br />The Division has no further concerns. In the August 19, 2011 submittal, CAM provided a <br />revised Exhibit 18 which shows that the water in Reed Wash can safely pass underneath <br />the proposed bridge. The revised report takes into account a new plan whereby no piers <br />will be in the channel and includes a more detailed description of the charts and the name <br />of the report preparer. The report is also referenced on revised page 2.05 -9. <br />50. Since there are several locations where the railroad spur and loop are close to Reed <br />Wash, the Division suggests that a barrier, such as a berm, be constructed between the <br />railroad tracks and Reed Wash in case of a coal spill from the railcars. <br />The Division has no further concerns. As explained in the April 11, 2011 revised permit <br />text sections 2.05.3(4), 2.05.6(2) and 2.05.6(3), Exhibit 9 and Map 16, berms and silt <br />fence will be used to contain any coal spills that might occur near Reed Wash. The <br />Division had requested an additional berm on the outside of ditch D2 -b but CAM pointed <br />out in the July 8, 2011 submittal that this is a cut area so no berm would be needed. <br />Finally, at the Division's request, the discussions on pages 2.05 -46, 47 and 54 were <br />updated in the August 19, 2011 submittal to discuss all of the silt fences on site. <br />56. Under Rule 2.05.3(4), in the Sedcad designs for the west culverts, a curve number of zero <br />is used for the irrigated wetlands area, citing a ground cover of 100% as justification for <br />that curve number. If the wetlands are saturated or are comprised of standing water, a <br />precipitation event could produce runoff in spite of the vegetative cover. Please describe <br />the nature of the wetlands as it relates to the determination of the curve number. <br />The Division has no further concerns. In the submittal dated April 11, 2011, CAM had <br />revised the curve number of the wetlands to 74. However, the April 11, 2011 submittal <br />had left out certain Sedcad design pages for the culverts. In the submittal dated July 8, <br />2011, the Sedcad design pages showing peak flows were provided. Finally, as requested <br />by the Division, CAM included a generic culvert sizing diagram on new page Exh. 9 -64 <br />in the August 19, 2011 submittal. <br />c: /word2007 /fruita/newappmemo4 <br />