Laserfiche WebLink
Elk Creek Mine TR-60 <br />2nd Adequacy Review <br />16 Dec 2008 <br />Page 8 of 9 <br />The Division has no further concerns; the page number has been changed. <br />24. The list of ASC control measures listed on revised page 2.05-37 refers to <br />"waddles ". The correct term is "wattles ". Please correct the spelling for pages <br />included in TR-60. <br />The Division has no further concerns; the spelling has been corrected. <br />25. The Bear Creek Fan Project 404 Permit has been added to page 2.03-18, but an <br />earlier reference to the II West Valley Fill 404 Permit that was pending has been <br />deleted. Please revise or explain. <br />Explanation that the USACOE determined IIWCRF did not contain jurisdictional <br />waters was provided in the November 26, 2008 response. The Division has no <br />further concerns. <br />26. Based on the Division's copy of the PAP, the revised page numbered 2.05-12a <br />should instead be numbered 2.05-11b. Please revise or explain. <br />The Division has no further concerns;,the page number has been changed. <br />27. Based on the Division's copy of the PAP, the revised page numbered 2.05-12b <br />should instead be numbered 2.05-12a. Please revise or explain. <br />The Division's comment was made in error; the 2.05-12b page notation is indeed <br />correct. The Division has no further concerns. <br />28. The Division greatly appreciates the "Summary of Revisions/Additions " table <br />that accompanied the submittal of TR-60. Missing from the list, but present in the <br />package, were Sedcad Hydrology Printouts for Section 10. Please revise the <br />table accordingly. <br />The Division has no further concerns. The table has been modified to include <br />Section 10 Sedcad Hydrology Printouts. <br />29. The Watershed Map included in Drawing No. 2.05-El-BCA2 depicts the Coal <br />Lease and Permit Boundary as they exist in the as yet unapproved TR-59 (Tract <br />#4 USFS Lease Modification). Please be advised that this map will need to be <br />changed, should approval of TR-60 precede the Division's approvat of TR-59. <br />The Division has no concerns at this time; it does appear that TR-59 will be <br />approved in the near future.