REV06550 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Response to DMG Additional Hydrology Comments: Watershed 9B was divided into 9B and 9BB to model D2-10A, located west of the junction of D2-9 and D2-10. The enclosed Map 54 should clarify this response. 2. Road drainage from the upper access road arrives at D2-9A from two different sources: watershed 9E runs through D2-9 and D2-10, while water from watershed 9EE flows through D2-9B. The revised Map 54 should clarify this response. 3. Watershed 35A was made smaller to accommodate watershed 35H. Watersheds 35H and 35F flow into D2-6E whereas watershed 35A flows into D2-6A. 4. Map 54 is included with this response. 5. Watershed 36F has been increased by 0.4 acre. The January 1994, SedCad runs showed 36A as 3.44 acres and 36F as 0.22 acre, for a total of 3.66 acres. The March 1994, runs showed 36A as 3.02 acres and 36F as 0.62 acre for a total of 3.64 acres. The difference in the totals was a digitizing error. Water flows down D2-6B, through C2-19, around the snow stockpile area in D2-6C and down through C2-3 A. 6. The revised run for D2-9 was submitted to include runoff from the portal access road and watershed 9E. 7. The revised run for D2-10 was submitted to include runoff from the portal access road and watershed 9E. Map 54 is included with this response. Response to DMG Bonding comments: No response is required The hydrology section has been revised to reflect properly sized culverts and because of MCC's previous response to 1., above, no additional response is necessary. 3. Attached is a stability analysis completed by MCC's consultant, Envirocon, Inc., which shows that the replacement of the 165,00 cubic yards as fill is not stable. Replacing 78,000 cubic yards of fill as proposed will result in a configuration that is more stable than the original contour and will provide ameadow-type habitat for wildlife (MCC's approved post-mining land use).