Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rob Zuber <br />August 25, 2015 <br />Page 5 <br />The decrease in the estimated annual sediment loading is not attributable to the difference <br />in "undisturbed area" discussed above. Rather, this model addresses a near end of active mining <br />condition where nearly 80% of watershed is either undisturbed or revegetated with 1 to 3 years <br />growth. That is a different watershed condition from the one previously submitted in the 2013 <br />TR -95. The observed reduction in annual sediment load remains with the corrected SEDCAD <br />modeling described above and submitted herewith with the 98.1 acres revised from <br />"undisturbed" to "3+ years reclamation" as described previously. <br />V. In Table 6, the sediment pond summary Volume 2D, some items under the <br />other ponds require explanation. The change sheet list indicates that <br />Table 6 was updated from Streeter Pond, however edits were also made <br />to the columns for other ponds (e.g., areas for Gossard Gulch A, Stoker <br />Siding, Rail Loop, Prospect, and East Taylor). Please explain the edits to <br />other ponds. <br />Response: Table 6 contains numerous geometric and performance values parameters for <br />(currently) 10 ponds, one including two separate points in the mine life. It has expanded <br />over the years as various pond designs and models have been submitted. The data must <br />either be manually input or input via a formula from a separate tab in the spreadsheet <br />where the Table 6 tab is the first tab. When revising a particular pond (a single column) <br />we tend to focus only on that column. Clearly there was an error in the formulas linking <br />the other ponds to the front tab, because those middle columns should not have changed <br />at all. Therefore, Table 6 resubmitted herewith has been totally reworked, with all entries <br />for all ponds manually entered and double checked. <br />d. <br />Response Accepted. <br />e. <br />Response Accepted. <br />f. <br />Response Accepted. <br />g. <br />Response Accepted. <br />h. <br />Response Accepted. <br />Response Accepted. <br />j. The Division agrees that the slope in the SEDCD run is acceptable. Part <br />of the discrepancy, however, stemmed from the scale on the drawing. Please <br />correct this error on this map and other maps, as appropriate. <br />A <br />