Laserfiche WebLink
Addressee Name <br />Date <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />8. Oxbow has committed in their adequacy response to update their revegetation sampling plan for <br />both the lower and higher elevation disturbance areas and to submit comprehensive changes to <br />the sampling plan under a separate technical revision at a later date. <br /> <br />9. Rule 2.05.4(2) lists the information that is required for the reclamation of lands within a permit <br />area (correction to typo in original adequacy question). Oxbow’s response does not address all <br />the required information listed in Rule 2.05.4(2) for a comprehensive reclamation plan of the Elk <br />Creek riparian; however, the Division does recognize, that significant changes to the reclamation <br />plan are beyond the scope of the permit renewal process. At a future date before reclamation, a <br />technical revision will need to be submitted which addresses the Elk Creek riparian reclamation. <br /> <br /> <br />Exhibits and Drawings <br /> <br />1. Map 2.04-M5 – Ground Water Hydrology was submitted with nine (9) additional ground water <br />monitoring wells labeled on the map (TC-1, TC-2, WSC-DH12, SC-2, P-1, EC-16, EC-5, EC-6 <br />and EC-7). These wells are not in the permit monitoring plan and were not reported in the 2012 <br />AHR. Please clarify if these wells need to be included on the map or in the monitoring plan. <br /> <br />Ground water well BC-1 is located on Map2.04-M5 east of Hawk’s Nest Creek. The Hydrologic <br />Monitoring Plan - Exhibit 2.05-E7, page 1 shows that it is on Bear Creek. Please clarify the <br />location of well BC-1 and make the map and text consistent. <br /> <br />2. Item Resolved. <br /> <br />3. Item Resolved. <br /> <br />4. Item Resolved. <br /> <br />5. Item Resolved <br /> <br />6. Oxbow submitted a new typical design for drainage and sediment control of degasification wells <br />that does not include a clean water diversion ditch. Drawing 2.05-M4 (4/4) shows a typical plan <br />for drainage and sediment control of degasification wells with a clean water diversion ditch. It is <br />not clear from the text or drawings the conditions that determine when each typical plan is to be <br />implemented. Please clarify when each typical plan is to be implemented. Also, the new drawing <br />(without a clean water diversion ditch) does not have a page number for insertion into the permit. <br /> <br />7. Section 6 of Exhibit 2.05-E3 includes a Pond D Summary that lists the details of the currently <br />approved Pond D configuration. The primary spillway invert elevation on this table is reported to <br />be 6166.0’. The previously approved SEDCAD demonstration for Pond D (Exhibit 2.05-E3 <br />Section 10y) also specified a primary spillway elevation of 6166.0’. The SEDCAD run provided <br />by Oxbow with the RN-6 adequacy response indicates that the spillway elevation is 6167.5’. The <br />riser height in the currently approved run is 5.0’; the RN6 submittal is 5.2’. Likewise, the <br />previous version indicates a secondary spillway elevation of 6168.1’ and the RN6 submittal is <br />based on an elevation of 6169.5’. Please verify the spillway elevations and riser height and revise <br />the RN-6 SEDCAD runs or the Pond D Summary for consistency. <br /> <br />8. Map series 2.05-M4 has inconsistent sheet labels. The series contains sheets: 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 1/1, <br />5/5 and 5/ 5. Please update the map sheet numbers. Also, update the map number and sheet on <br />page 2.05-23c, Section P, last paragraph, Map 2.04-M4 should be 2.05-M4 (sheet number?) - <br />Drainage and Sediment Control Plan. <br /> <br />