APPCOR12981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Jim Stover August 9, 1996 -New App./Bowie 2 Page 11 However, in Appendix B, the worksheet for "upper diversion of cover fill" for the 100-year, 24-hour event shows a peak discharge of 28.66 c.f.s. Please reconcile this difference. 52) We understand that the vegetation monitoring locations were not necessarily considered for use in the determination of curve numbers. However, the data are being used in that manner (as is appropriate). Please provide evidence that the vegetation data in Exhibit 8 provide reasonable curve numbers for those drainage areas that were not the specific sites used for the vegetation sampling. 53) Response accepted. 54) We understand the argument presented by BRL, regarding the overall compliance of the stnrcture. We do not agree that this pond is a dugout pond; however, the specific embankment geometry should generally comply with the intent of the application regulations. We do, however, question the overall stability of cut slope and pond configuration. This pond will be constructed above a steep cut bank, and as discussed elsewhere in the adequacy process, the stability of such cut slopes has been questioned. Please provide a stability analysis which shows that the cut slope and pond will be geotechnically stable. 55) Response accepted. 56) Response accepted. 57) Response accepted. 58) Response accepted. 59) BRL's response to this concern is acceptable. The proposed drain material gradation would adequately prevent clogging without the use of a filter fabric. In the event that the proposed gradation cannot be met during construction, BRL should propose an appropriate filter fabric for approval by the Division, prior to installation. 60) Response accepted. 61) This issue is discussed in detail at number 13 of this letter. Additional response is required. 62) This issue requires additional response. See number 13 of this letter. 63) This issue requires additional response. See number 13 of this letter.