Laserfiche WebLink
David Berry -8- June 20, 1996 <br />34. On pages 6 and 9 of Exhibit 8, values are given for 8 canopy <br />and 8 cover. The DMG notes that these values do not seem to <br />correlate with the vegetation values presented on pages 2, 3 <br />and 4 of Exhibit 8. BRL has the following explanation for <br />this apparent lack of correlation: <br />Mixed shrub 92.6$ cover is the average of the ground cover for <br />the baseline and reference area (91.6 + 93.6) presented on <br />page Exh-8-2. Mixed shrub 56.98 canopy is the average cover <br />for shrubs and trees presented in the Vegetation Report, Table <br />B-2 (57.2 + 56.6). <br />Dry mixed shrub 408 cover is the average of the assumed cover <br />of 308 to 508 presented on page Exh-8-3. Dry Mixed shrub 208 <br />canopy was assumed. <br />Juniper woodland 85.28 cover is the average of the ground <br />cover for the baseline and reference area (75.8 + 94.5) <br />presented on page Exh-8-2. Juniper woodland 56.98 canopy is <br />apparently incorrect. The value should be the average cover <br />for shrubs and trees presented in the Vegetation Report, Table <br />B-2 (29.9 + 26.5 = 28.2). The C-Factor calculation was <br />revised but it was not sensitive to this minor change. <br />Enclosed are revised pages Exh-8-6 and Exh-8-9 which show the <br />revised canopy value for the Juniper woodland community. <br />Wetland 50$ cover is the average of the assumed cover of 308 <br />to 708 presented on page Exh-8-3. <br />Sage 788 cover is the same value presented on page Exh-8-4. <br />Meadow 88.48 cover is the value for the upper meadow presented <br />in the Vegetation Report, Table B-3. This value is less than <br />the combined upper and lower meadow value presented on page <br />Exh-8-3 and therefore conservative. <br />35. On pages 6 and 9 of Exhibit 8, an erosion control practice <br />factor, "P", of 0.75 is used. The disturbed area will <br />contribute the majority of the sediment to the ponds. By <br />revegetating slopes and gravel surfacing roads and benches, <br />the sediment yield from the disturbed areas will be <br />significantly reduced. Therefore, a judgement was made that <br />gravel surfacing and revegetation could be considered factors <br />for conservation practices. In any case we are discussing <br />estimated sediment yield in order to design the sediment <br />ponds. If the sediment yield is underestimated then the ponds <br />will have to be cleaned more frequently which should not be a <br />significant concern of the DMG. <br />36. On pages 7 and 10 of Exhibit 8, it is stated that riprap will <br />not be needed for the top of the emergency spillways for ponds <br />B and C, respectively. The calculated velocity of the <br />