Laserfiche WebLink
discharge from any local runoff. However, the peakflow for ditch J8-2 is given as only 12.44 cfs. <br />The same apparent discrepancy appears on revised page Exh-8-180v for ditch J-9-2. Also, the two <br />currently approved pages Exh-8-180iv and 180v have this similar apparent problem. Please <br />explain. <br />In the October 5, 2007 submittal, the 100 year-24 hour peak flows and ditch dimensions for <br />ditches J8-1 and J9-1 were revised on pages Exh 8-29iii, Exh 8-180xxiv and Exh 8-180xxv and <br />Map 224. However, revised pages Exh 8-180iv and Exh 8-180v were not included in the <br />submittal. Please provide these two revised pages. <br />16. On revised page Exh-8-166, it is stated that ditch J-8-2 receives flow from its local drainage area <br />and from ditch J-10. The required peak discharge is, then, given as 10.21 cfs. However, Map 21-1 <br />shows that ditch J-8-2 also receives flow from ditch J-8-1. Please clarify. <br />Also, the required peak discharge for ditch J-8-2 on page Exh-8-166 doesn't correspond to the <br />data on revised page Exh-8-180iv. This similar discrepancy also appears in the currently <br />approved permit application pages Exh-8-166 and Exh-8-180iv as well. Please clam. <br />The Division has no further concerns. In the submittal dated October 5, 2007, revised page Exh 8- <br />166 was provided. No other changes were needed. <br />17. On revised page Exh-8-167, the statement is made that ditch J-9-2 receives its flow from local <br />drainage plus from ditch J-11. However, from Map 21-1, ditch J-9-1 also flows into ditch J-9-2. <br />Please clarify. <br />Also, the peak discharge for ditch J-9-2 listed on revised page Exh-8-167 corresponds to that <br />listed on revised page Exh-8-180v. However, as mentioned in item number 14 above, this peak <br />discharge may need to be revised. <br />The Division has no further concerns. Revised page Exh 8-167 was provided in the submittal <br />dated October 5, 2007. No other changes were needed. <br />18. Depending on the outcome of items numbered 14, 15 and 16 above, the tables on Map 22-J, page <br />Exh-8-29iii and Appendix B may need to be changed. <br />Map 22-J and permit application page Exh 8-29iii were included in the October 5, 2007 submittal. <br />However, a revised Appendix B, "Ditch Summary-Loadout", in Volume XI was not included. <br />Please provide a copy of the revised appendix page. <br />Section 2.05.4. Reclamation Plan <br />19. The Division has finished its calculation of the reclamation cost estimate for TR-49. Attached to <br />this adequacy letter are the spreadsheets for the estimate. There are two summary sheets and one <br />demolition sheet. There is a credit of $29,861.00 for this estimate because BRL will not be <br />constructing the refuse bin and overland conveyor. Please review the reclamation cost estimate <br />and inform the Division in writing whether or not the estimate is agreeable to BRL. <br />4