Laserfiche WebLink
<br />appropriate map, such as Map No. 20, Sedimentation Control <br />Plan, and labeled as an SAE. <br />~34. The Division has no further concerns. BRL explained where the <br />values of percent cover and percent canopy came from in the <br />//"~ permit. Also, revised pages Exh-8-6 and Exh-8-9 were supplied. <br />35. The Division has no further concerns. BRL has explained the <br />rationale of choosing a certain P value in the Universal Soil <br />Loss Equation. <br />/36. The Division has no further concerns. The emergency spillways <br />will be adequately protected from water erosion with a <br />vegetative cover. <br />' p7. The Division has no further concerns. The peak flow <br />VVVV calculation for the B-5 wetland areas is conservative with the <br />numbers used by BRL for hydraulic length and elevation change. <br />f/38. The Division has no further concerns. BRL pointed out that the <br />vVVVVV drainage area above the gob pile was taken into account when <br />the peak flow from the gob pile upper diversion ditch was <br />added to the peak flow from drainage area D. <br />,/39. The Division has no further concerns. BRL supplied revised <br />U pages Exh-8-12, Exh-8-13 and Exh-8-21. The peak flow <br />calculation for watershed D-1 changed slightly when the <br />elevation change was adjusted. <br />`,40. The Division has no further concerns. The peak flow <br />calculation for the Juniper woodland areas is conservative <br />with the numbers used by BRL for hydraulic length and <br />elevation change. <br />~1. The Division has no further concerns. An annotation arrow was <br />added to Map 20, Sedimentation Control Plan, for culvert C-B1. <br />~2. The Division has no further concerns. For clarification, an <br />additional annotation for ditch D-B24 was added to Map 20, <br />Sedimentation Control Plan, and Map 21-1, Drainage Plans. <br />X43. The Division has no further concerns. BRL pointed out that the <br />entry of ditch B-24, in the culvert table on page Exh-8-26, as <br />contributing flow to culvert C-B12, was correct. <br />'~44. The Divison has no further concerns. BRL explained that <br />subtracting the flow out of culvert C-B13 from the flow <br />calculation for culvert C-B12 made sense because that flow had <br />been included in the contributing flow from ditch D-24, but <br />culvert C-B13 did not drain into culvert C-B12. The table on <br />page Exh-8-26 was revised because of a typographic error. <br />3 <br />