Laserfiche WebLink
should be revised in order to not include this assumption. <br />However, without this assumption, the pond F does not have enough design capacity. This is <br />because the curve number for dry mixed shrub was changed from 41 to 57, as requested by the <br />Division. The greater runoff exceeds the pond's volume. The Division appreciates BRL's efforts <br />in adjusting the curve number at this time but it may be better to keep the curve number at 41 until <br />the two gob pile benches have actually been covered in soil material. Please comment or submit <br />new hydrology designs and text. <br />Page EXfl-8-13 notes that Ditch D-FI has been re-routed and re-named Ditch D-1, and that it now <br />flows into Pond D. In order to maintain compliance with Rules 4.05.6(3), (4), and (5), please <br />investigate the impacts ofthis additional flow on the existing calculationsfor the required capacity of <br />Pond D, and submit new designs demonstrating continued compliance. Also, for my information, are <br />Pond D and the Gob Pile Pond one in the same? <br />Page Exh 8-13 was corrected in the July 7, 2006 submittal to show that ditch D-F1 was re-routed <br />and re-named ditch D-5, not ditch D-1 as stated in the original TR-43 submittal. Also, ditches <br />associated with gob pile no. 1 and pond D were given new designations and new hydrology <br />designs, as presented on pages Exh 8-74ix and 74x. <br />In addition, BRL provided updated pond D hydrology designs. Page Exh 8-17 in the July 7, 2006 <br />submittal and pages Exh 8-18 and 19 in the May 17, 2006 submittal, as well as pages Exh 8-207 <br />and 208 in the July 7, 2006 submittal were provided. <br />These revised pond D and ditch hydrology designs are to supersede the original pond B and ditch <br />hydrology designs found in the text, figures and appendices of Volume IV. [n order to avoid any <br />confusion, please provide a method to flag the relevant information in Volume IV that no longer is <br />applicable and where the new information can be found. <br />8. In revising the language of Page 6 ofExhibit LYto past tense, BRL left a typographical error in the <br />first sentence of the second paragraph, in that the sentence includes the phrase "are not be ". <br />The Division has no further concems. A revised page 6 of Exhibit IX was included in the July 7, <br />2006 submittal. <br />9. As noted in the inspection reportfor the aerial inspection conducted on June 13, 2006, the Division is <br />concerned about the lack of activity at the Gob Pile No. 1 over the past year. We have reviewed the <br />quarterly refuse pile inspection reports submitted for the pile over the pastfew years, and the reports <br />show that no refuse has been added to the pile since the first quarter of2005 (the volume reportedly <br />placed during the /" quarter of2005 was "very little ", 4`h quarter of2004 was "very little ifany'). It <br />would appear that BRL has completed placement of refuse an this pile and should now commence <br />reclamation in accordance with Rules 4.10.4(5) and 4.13. Please advise the Division ofthe schedule <br />for the reclamation of Gob Pile No. 1. <br />The Division has no further concems. Gob Pile No. I will be part of an expanded gob pile in the <br />future. Therefore, no reclamation is needed at this time. <br />