Laserfiche WebLink
G. On page B-4 of the curve number determinations for pond B, a soil type of <br />Persayo Sandy Loam is used for the salt desert shrub community and <br />Avalon Sandy Loam is used for the Juniper Shrub community. However, <br />these two soil types are not shown on Map-04 being within the drainage <br />area for pond B. Conversely, Map -04 shows that Chipeta Silty Clay is in <br />the pond B drainage area but this soil type is not used in any of the pond B <br />curve number determinations. Please explain. <br />H. On page D-3 of the curve number determinations for pond D, a soil type <br />of Persayo Sandy Loam is used for the salt desert community. This soil <br />type does not appear on Map-04 for the pond D drainage area. Two other <br />soil types, Chipeta Clay and Aga Very Gravelly Loam do appear in the <br />pond D drainage area shown on Map-04 but are not used in the curve <br />number determinations. Please explain. <br />4. Referring to Map 15-1, it appears that there are several places where runoff from <br />adjoining slopes could flow freely onto or into certain support facilities in the <br />portal area. One such area is pond A while another is the portal bench. Three <br />other areas are the access road leading up to the water tank, the haul road <br />switchback just above the start of ditch RD-A14, and the northwest side of the <br />material storage area adjacent to that same haul road switchback. The Division <br />requests that CAM consider additional ditches in these areas to keep runoff from <br />adversely affecting pond performance, bench stability and road stability. <br />5. In the Sedcad design for pond A, on page A-4, the reference area percent litter for <br />Juniper Shrub is listed as being 17.4 and the percent ground cover as being 34.8. <br />However, referring to Table E54 of Exhibit 5 in Volume III, it appears the <br />reference area litter percent for Juniper Scrub is 21.96, resulting in a ground cover <br />of 43.9 percent. Although this doesn't change the curve number, the discrepancy <br />might lead to future confusion. Please revise if you agree. <br />6. In the Sedcad design for pond A, on page A-5, there is an entry for desert shrub <br />with a fair hydrologic condition and a curve number of 86. However, there is no <br />curve number 86 verification information as was done for the other curve <br />numbers on pages A-3, A-4 and A-5. Please provide this information. <br />7. On page D-5 of the curve number determination for pond D, a curve number of 89 <br />is given for the greasewood community but is listed as 84 in the runoff volume <br />calculation. Please revise accordingly. <br />8. On pages F-3 and F-4 for pond F, the curve number determinations for the two <br />sagebrush communities appear to have incorrect information. In both cases, the <br />cover type is listed as being desert shrub although the vegetation community is <br />listed as being sagebrush. In addition, both curve numbers for the sagebrush <br />communities are shown as being 88 although they are listed as being 55 and 70 in <br />the run-off volume calculation for pond F. Please explain or revise. <br />3