Laserfiche WebLink
<br />!;. <br />slightly overestimate the sediment volume, as the <br />average 1980 sediment yield multiplied by 3 would <br />be higher than the total of the actual yields for <br />1980, 1981, and 1982. Time did not allow for this <br />sort of retirement in our calculations. <br />All three values of VM were used on the other <br />ponds, because several stages of reclamation and <br />soil disturbance existed. This approach is not <br />more or less conservative than the Pond A calcu- <br />lation, as each calculation was performed to <br />reflect, as accurately as possible, the conditions <br />at each pond. <br />See, also, p. 816-45(a)-(d) and Supplement to <br />Appendix A to Exhibit 13 <br />12/20/79 Memo, p. 2, #9 <br />"9. A statement on page 816-46 indicates that some <br />ponds may be left at the site following reclamation if <br />required by State or Federal Law. Are any ponds presently <br />planned to be left as permanent impoundments? Which <br />ponds could be left to satisfy State or Federal Law?" <br />See, p. 816-49(a) and (b) <br />12/20/79 Memo, p. 2, #10 <br />"10. Runoff volumes for ponds were estimated under <br />AMCIII conditions, but in the design pond culverts, AMC <br />II condition were used to determine peak flow. Why <br />were two different assumptions used? Culverts should <br />be sized for same runoff conditions as pond volume." <br />MLR withdrew this question at the 1/14/80 meeting <br />