Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ley <br />The year 1980 was selected because the tributary <br />area was the largest and it had the highest SCS <br />Curve Number of the years investigated. The years <br />investigated were the ones which LRCWE believes <br />would produce the greatest runoff volume. <br />Table 3 in Appendix C of Exhibit 13 confirms this. <br />See, also, p. 816-46(a) <br />12/20/79 Memo, p. 1, #5 <br />"5. The applicant should clarify the conditions under <br />which irrigation water would be released from Pond A. <br />Federal regulations prohibit the dewatering of the <br />sediment storage through a dewatering device. If <br />irrigation water is released, how would effluent limi- <br />tations be met? <br />'With respect to effluent limitations vs. water rights <br />brought about as a result of conflicting state regulations, <br />EFC was advised by Dean Massey that he was working to <br />solve this conflict." <br />See, also, p. 780-163(a), (b) <br />12/20/79 Memo, p. 2, #6 <br />"6. Page 780-217 states that additional information <br />Concerning design of ponds D, E, F, G, and O would be <br />submitted on or about October 15, 1979. This material <br />has not yet been submitted. When may it be expected?" <br />See, p. 780-217(a)and (b) <br />12/20/79 Memo, p. 2, #7 <br />"7. The applicant should clarify the dewatering of <br />smaller ponds. A statement on page 780-26 implies that <br />smaller ponds would dewater through evaporation. <br />However design details show all ponds having dewatering <br />devices. Which dewatering method is proposed? Evapora- <br />tion is not an approved dewatering method." <br />See, p. 780-26(a) <br />