Laserfiche WebLink
r' <br />r <br />The Division has no further concerns. The operator is willing to keep the present worst case <br />design configuration, as shown on sheet 4 of 4 of Map 2.05-M4 dated March 15, 2001, as the <br />approved SAE design requirement. <br />3. Since the berm is considered a hydrologic structure, a design should be submitted to shox~ <br />the height ojthe berm and that the height of the berm will be sufficient to channel runoff, <br />without being overtopped The design should take in[o account a freeboard oj0.3 feet. Please <br />submit [his berm design. <br />The Division has no further concerns. The submittal dated Mazch 6, 2001 contained the <br />appropriate berm design. <br />4. The Sedcad design for the straw bales uses a "width along contour " of 23.0 feet. However, <br />the map [ha[ accompanies the Sedcad run shows a width of about 12 feet for the straw bales. <br />Please reconcile this difference and modify the map or the Sedcad design accordingly. <br />The Division has no further concerns. Sheet 4 of 4 of Drawing 2.05-M4, dated March 15, <br />2001, was revised. <br />5. The watershed boundary, shown as a green line on the map !ha[ has a scale of "1 inch <br />equals 100 feet" thnt was included in MR-56, appears !o need modification. The actual <br />watershed, as partieslly shown on the "1 inch equals 1000 feet" stole map provided in MR- <br />~6, appears to be much lnrger than what is depicted on the "1 inch equals 100 feet "scale <br />map. Please revise the "/ inch equals /00 fee[ "scale map accordingly. <br />The Division has no further concerns. Sheet 4 of 4 of Drawing 2.05-M4, dated Mazch I5, <br />2001. was revised. <br />If you have any questions, please let me know. <br />m:/coal/sb I /mr56memo2 <br />c:/ms97/sanbom/mr56memo2 <br />