Laserfiche WebLink
Response to DRMS Adequacy Review(2) Cotter-9 Mine Reclamation Plan Amendment <br /> requisite analyses or remove them from Sheet 3 of 10. <br /> FIGURE 3. <br /> 0- <br /> M <br /> f <br /> � t <br /> r <br /> No label or a na lyses for <br /> these two new channels <br /> Fail TE YUAtu ju <br /> Ik 10 <br /> NAIL <br /> NNEL r <br /> The two diversion channels upgradient of the proposed detention pond have been <br /> eliminated. The pond analysis now includes the additional area illustrated by your <br /> blue highlighting on your Figure 1. This area will enter the pond via overland flow. <br /> b. What happened to the 911212012 Section 30-2 (reference Sheet 3 of 7)?Is this <br /> previously proposed channel no longer being considered? <br /> Site observations do not indicate an existing channel of significance. The <br /> contours appear that way because of an anomaly in the T.I.N. creation. The <br /> channel does not exist. <br /> 14. Sheet 5 of 10. Retention Pond 30: Post-Reclamation. There is no defined channel or <br /> armoring specified for the "chute" section at a 3H:1 V slope from elevation 6354 to the <br /> toe of the embankment. Please redesign with a defined and armored channel, or remove <br /> the embankment to the original grade and armor if necessary. <br /> The reclaimed pond drawings have been revised to show a defined channel with no steep <br /> drop at the end. See Attachment 4. <br /> 10 <br />