Laserfiche WebLink
Permit Revision Adequacy Comment Response <br />November 30, 2004 <br />Page 11 of24 <br />• include seeding and revegetation of soil disturbed (rejuvenated slumps or slides) that aze <br />exposed by subsidence-induced slides (any slide occurring within the angle of draw of zone of <br />seismic impact.) Clearance of blocked or impacted drainages should also be addressed. <br />MCC Response: Potential impacts have been discussed and potential mitigation <br />measures. <br />57. The section "Probable Hydrologic Consequences" begins on page Z.OS-128. The narrative <br />relates to Rule 2.05.6(3)(b)(iii) and (viii). The Division requests that MCC make reference in <br />this section to where the information relating to the sections 2.05.6(3)(b)(i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi) <br />and (vii) of that rule can be found in the PAP. The information is present, but scattered <br />throughout the PAP. A systematic review of the PAP against the rules would be greatly <br />assisted by a reference to the location of descriptions relating to those other sections. <br />MCC Response: Concise summary of PHCs added. <br />58. On page 2.05-129, in the first bullet, the first two statements do not appeaz to agree with the <br />discussion in section 2.04.7 distinguishing "active" from "inactive" groundwater regimes. <br />Please explain and clazify. <br />MCC Response: Text modified to make distinction. <br />^~59. On pages 2.05-129, 130 and 131, the bullet quotes the Division's Cumulative Hydrologic <br />Impacts Analysis as if it's a primary reference. Please provide appropriate primary references <br />for these statements. Of particular note is #5, in which the PAP quotes the CHIA (done by the <br />Division) on the results of work that was actually done by MCC. It is appropriate to explain <br />the original work. <br />MCC Response: MCC made this minor change. <br />60. In the text discussion on page 2.05-135 please don't remove the text that was in the previous <br />version dealing with other parts of the permit azea (such as in the section "Background on <br />Stream Channels and Hydrology.") Please add the discussion about the South-of-Divide area <br />and retain the information already in the text. <br />MCC Response: Integrated Exhibit 55 into the text. <br />61. On page 2.05-138 the third pazagraph discusses the probability of crack formation as a function <br />of topography and outcrop but does not include depth of cover. Please explain the role that <br />depth of cover plays in the probability of crack formation. (This issue is addressed further in <br />the review of Rule 2.06.6, but is relevant here also as it is discussed in the text.) <br />MCC Response: Crack formation is addressed in the text and Exhibits 60B and 60C. <br />a <br />