Laserfiche WebLink
Adequacy Letter - TR 65 <br />September 17, 1993 <br />Page 4 <br />permanent pool. If the permanent pool should only reflect <br />the storage right, then the model should be revised. <br />3. MCC should provide the Division with watershed information for <br />watershed 13F, 5C, and 5D, located at the topsoil pile. <br />4. The Division believes that a curve number of 89 should be used <br />for watershed 15F rather than 86. An 89 is more appropriate <br />for a graveled road with a C hydrologic soil group. A change <br />is unnecessary, however, as the runoff volume remains the same <br />with the higher curve number, and the peak discharge only <br />increases by 0.03 cfs. <br />5. Drawing G-103, section at stand pipe, should be reviewed again <br />for elevations, as the high water elevation is marked above <br />the principal spillway, but the high water elevation shows the <br />water at 6063.55 and the principal spillway at 6117.7. In <br />addition, the SEDCAD pond input table does not match this <br />elevation for the principal spillway. The principal spillway <br />should be marked on the typical pond section drawing as well. <br />MISCELLANEOUS <br />1. MCC should provide the Division with revised plan view and <br />cross-sections of ponds MB-2R and MB-3 (Drawings G-103-105) <br />once the ponds have been constructed and enlarged to be <br />incorporated into the permit. <br />2. Does the primary spillway on MB-5 have a gated valve? If so, <br />MCC may consider revising page 10 of Exhibit 66? <br />3. MCC should revise Table 42, Watershed Runoff Summary to <br />include the new watersheds added during this revision. <br />4. If MCC would review the Division's letter dated April 16, <br />1993, question 2A, in regards to technical revision 64, the <br />Division asked that additional storage restrictions on <br />revegetated areas and the refuse pile be included on Map 53. <br />Revised Maps 53 and 54 state that equipment will be stored on <br />the refuse pile. MCC should remove this statement. <br />5. Table 43 does not correspond to the output from MB-2R and MB- <br />3. <br />SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION <br />The subsurface investigation report completed by BBC&M Engineering <br />has been reviewed by Jim Pendleton of the Division. The Division <br />finds that BBC&M performed the investigation in an exemplary <br /> <br />