Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The first item repeats the concern noted in Comment 5 (Pits 5/6). <br />Please see the corresponding response. <br />The second item repeats the concern noted in Comment 4 (Pits 1 /2/3). <br />Please see the corresponding response. <br />The third item is addressed by Appendix D, Sedimentation Pond <br />Retention/Reclamation, Appendix A, Drainage Design Information, and <br />the Pond 4 Design Map, (Map R-3). <br />2) Issue N.1 is changed as follows: <br />a. Hydrologic designs can be based upon the 10 year, 24-hourpeak flow, <br />ratlter than the 100-year, 24-Hour peak flow. <br />b. Tl:e post mining topography map issue is resolved as discussed above. <br />• c. As specified in the Agreement, some bond amount will be retained, <br />at the final increment release, if the Pits 5 and 6 engineering work is <br />not complete. <br />Response: All hydrologic designs have been revised to incorporate <br />the design input values specified by the Division. Revised design <br />information is presented in Appendix A, Drainage Design Information. <br />The comment regarding the postmining topography map repeats the <br />concern noted in Comment 1 (Pits 5/6). Please see the corresponding <br />response. <br />This submittal includes appropriate engineering documentation for all <br />outstanding Pit 5/6 issues identified in the Division's 9/13/91 summary <br />letter. Retention of sufficient monies to fund associated engineering <br />• work is therefore, not necessary. <br />IS - <br />