Laserfiche WebLink
William A. Bear <br />Page 2of6 <br />October 9, 2014 <br />3. BRL provided the requested clarification and also updated Maps 15 -1 and 20 for <br />consistency. The design information for deleted Culvert G1, however, remains in the permit <br />application package on page Exh- 8 -32i. Please submit a proposed page Exh -8 -32i as a <br />deleted page or designated blank page. <br />4. BRL provided repaginated designs, as requested. Revised information provided in BRL's <br />September 24, 2014 response to Item 4 has resulted in the identification of an additional <br />issue: <br />BRL indicated that the flow from Culvert C22 will flow to Ditch C18, and provided revised <br />design information for Ditch C18. BRL also updated the table on page EXH 8 -29i to add the <br />flow from Culvert C22 to Ditches C22, C23, and C24. This table is now inconsistent with the <br />design information for each of these ditches. Please update the design information <br />beginning on currently approved page Exh 8 -74vi for Ditches C22, C23, and C24 to include <br />the increased flow from Culvert C -22. <br />S. Issue resolved; BRL repaginated the design information as requested. <br />6. BRL provided the requested design information. BRL also provided a reasonable <br />explanation for the absence of design information for several culverts in the currently <br />approved permit application package, and indicated that design information for all culverts <br />would be updated over time with subsequent revisions. Please include a page in Exhibit 8, <br />preferably prior to the existing culvert design pages, that lists the culverts that were <br />approved based on sizing with nomographs and for which specific design information is <br />not included in the permit application package. <br />7. Issue resolved; BRL provided design information for Ditch C25. <br />8. BRL revised page Exh -8 -31 as requested. However, there are additional issues that were <br />identified on the revised table submitted with BRL's September 24, 2014 response to Item <br />8: <br />a. It is not clear why BRL has revised the estimated flow through Culvert G3 from 1.07 cfs <br />to 0.98 cfs. The design information on page Exh. 8 -255 is based on flow of 1.07 cfs, and <br />no design information for this change was provided with the September 24, 2014 <br />submittal. Materials provided for review of TR -87 (not yet incorporated as revised <br />pages) indicate a design discharge of 14.05 cfs, due to increased flow with removal of <br />Culvert F4. Please provide an explanation of and design information for the change in <br />flow value to Culvert G3 presented on revised page EXH -8 -31. <br />b. BRL revised the Culvert Summary table using out of date flow values for Culverts D1 and <br />D2. The flow values for those culverts were revised to 9.7 cfs with TR -84. Please revise <br />the culvert summary table on page Exh -8 -31 to use the currently approved flow of 9.7 <br />cfs for Culverts D1 and D2. <br />