Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />6/29/2016 <br />from the 23.74 acres of run-off from the deal diversion. Please submit a revised Deal 1 Pond <br />design that includes the additional inflow as a result of the Deal Diversion SEDCAD model or <br />provide the Division with a justification that the current design is adequate. <br />3. As noted in comment #1 above, the Division must review all variables used to derive the <br />structure outputs with the Deacon/Jeffway Diversion. Based on the Division's review all <br />variables appear adequate for the diversion. However, the structure networking and individual <br />structures associated with the drainage of the watershed and the resulting peak discharge <br />require clarification. The SEDCAD model for the Deacon/Jeffway Diversion does not provide a <br />description of the structures associated with the model. It appears that the design includes two <br />ponds as structures. These additional ponds are not noted in any proposed or approved text or <br />on any proposed or approved Maps. Based on the Division's review of Map M51, the structure <br />networking is as follows: South Section=>Central Section=>North Section=>Junction 1=>East <br />Flume Pond. No additional Ponds are noted on Map M51. Please clarify the Deacon/Jeffway <br />Diversion model to identify the correct network structuring and the inclusion of the two <br />ponds identified as structures #8 and #10 within the SEDCAD model. <br />4. Based on the information in comment #3 above. A revised design for the East Flume Pond which <br />would include the Deacon/Jeffway Diversion run-off, was not included in the TR115 submittal. <br />In order to ensure that the East Flume Pond will have the adequate capacity to contain and treat <br />the run-off or inflow entering the pond, the East Flume Pond design must include the additional <br />inflow resulting from the 83.78 acres of run-off from the deal diversion. Please submit a <br />revised East Flume Pond design that includes the additional inflow as a result of the <br />Deacon/Jeffway Diversion SEDCAD model or provide the Division with a justification that the <br />current design is adequate. <br />