Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Zach Trujillo <br />December 17, 2015 <br />Page 4 <br />Response: A response to this comment was submitted on November 20, 2015. <br />ITEM 43. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM44. Response is adequate. <br />ITEM 45. Exhibit 7, Item 23 describes the worst case scenario (the "maximum configuration of <br />the temporary spoil pile'), but it does not give any reasoning L4Lhj this is the worst case <br />hydrologic condition. When looking at Map 29, Spoil Grading, it appears that in the year 2040 <br />there will be a large amount of graded area with no vegetation (CN = 85) near the bottom of the <br />watershed and also a large amount of area near the bottom of the watershed that has only a year <br />or two of vegetation growth. If a SEDCAD analysis has been performed to illustrate that this <br />scenario creates less runoff and sediment loading than the selected worst case with the maximum <br />configuration of the temporary spoil pile, it should be described in the introductory text in the <br />exhibit. <br />Response: A response to this comment was submitted on November 20, 2015. <br />ITEM 46. In Rule 4 far Collom, on page 7, further clarification of the text is needed. In Section <br />4.05.13 there is a sentence that reads, "All surface water and shallow groundwater monitoring <br />data is submitted in an annual report. " This is not true (or is at least confusing) because <br />Colowyo data for the NPDES permit is not reported in AHRs. The Division recommends that <br />the sentence be placed in another paragraph (separated from the NPDES discussion) and be <br />changed to the following: "In addition to the NPDES data, monitoring data is collected for <br />receiving waters (creeks listed below) and shallow groundwater; this data is submitted each year <br />in an annual report (the Annual Hydrology and Reclamation Report). " <br />Response: A response to this comment was submitted on November 20, 2015. <br />ITEM 47. Response is adequate <br />ITEM48. The word "and" was not included after "Creek", and the first comma in the sentence <br />is not appropriate. Please further revise the sentence. <br />Response: A response to this comment was submitted on November 20, 2015. <br />ITEM 49. The sampling sites for the East Fork of Jubb Creek are still unclear. The map says <br />that they are currently monitored, but they are not listed in the table. Please revise the map or <br />the table, as appropriate. <br />Response: A response to this comment was submitted on November 20, 2015. <br />A T„MLktlme Erterg-'Cooperan e t s� <br />