Laserfiche WebLink
6 so that they can be individually identified (e.g. "Item 6, page I"; "Item 6, page <br />2", etc.) <br />Oxbow Response: The Exhibit pages are re -submitted herein with such mis-identified <br />page numbers corrected as requested. <br />4. On the fourth page of the proposed revised text of Exhibit 2.05-E5 reference is <br />made to the maps that show the final postmining configurations for all mine <br />disturbance areas; the text refers to "Map 2.05-M6, Sheets 1 thru xx". Please <br />update the text to give a complete map reference. Please also refer to items 6 and <br />7 of this letter and ensure that other references are accurate. <br />Oxbow Response: This text has been modified to reference Sheets 1 thru 7. <br />5. In Table 2.05 -E5 -T2, the total values do not include the values for West Valley <br />and II West Refuse Piles. Please add the values for the refuse piles to the total <br />values or include annotation to clarify why they are not in the totals. <br />Oxbow Response: Please see the attached revised Table 2.05 -E5 -T2 which includes <br />reference to the material necessary to cap and reclaim the two refuse piles. <br />6. Map 2.05-M6 is confusing. The title bars of the currently approved map <br />describes the sheets as follows: 1of 4; 2 of 4; 3 of 4; 4 of 4; 5 of 5; 5 of 5 again; 7 <br />of 7. The sheets supplied with TR76 are described as: 1 of 7; 2 of 7; 3 of 7; 5 of 7; <br />7 of 7. The numbering is more logical on the sheets that are proposed to be <br />revised, however the remaining two will not fit the sequence. Furthermore, the <br />key which shows the location of each of the seven sheets has not been updated <br />i. Please revise the entire set of sheets of map 2.05-M6, ensuring that they are <br />appropriately numbered. <br />ii. Please update the key on each sheet to show the location of all seven sheets. <br />Oxbow Response: While the original set of maps consisted of a 4 map set, we now <br />have a set of maps that have evolved to a 7 map set due to mine plan revisions. To <br />avoid the waste of plotter paper, rather than plot numerous maps to correct such a <br />minor issue, we have included herein some stick -on labels for "sheet 4 of 7 sheets" and <br />"sheet 6 of 7 sheets" to avoid confusion. <br />7. TR -76 proposes revisions to map 2.05 -E5 -M1. The currently approved drawing <br />consists of 4 sheets; the revision proposes changes to sheets 1 and 3. On the <br />proposed new sheets the title bar incorrectly describes them as "1 of 2" and "2 of <br />2". Please review and correct the title bar information on the revised sheets of <br />map 2.05 -E5 -M1 <br />Oxbow Response: For an unexplained reason, Oxbow's copy of the PAP does not have <br />the 4 sheet set of the Exhibit 2.05 -E5 -M1 as described by the Division. We understand <br />that the former "sheet 2 of 4 sheet" and "sheet 4 of 4 sheet" deal with the Sanborn <br />Creek mine area and Fan/shaft areas. As these areas are either reclaimed, contain a <br />NFELLC gas well or otherwise proposed for an alternative land use, these two sheets <br />0 Page 2 <br />