Laserfiche WebLink
9. Please add a notation in the legend for Map 2.05-El-BCA2 that explains the use of <br />yellow color to designate small area exemption areas. <br />The small area exemptions on Map 2.05-E1-BCA2 have been labeled. However, as noted <br />in item number 3 above, the Division is requesting that all disturbed areas be designed as <br />SAES, including the inlet and outlet disturbed areas for Bear Creek culvert BCC-1 and <br />the cut slope just east of the fan pad. <br />C; LoaPr `nsi?o"ise: :"re ar?lef aY-I outlet to the wall>ert and the cut slope above the pad <br />area v:? peer, deli na ea; ag SCEs ?? 1 'ap 2.05-E-1.-BCA2. <br />12. In comparing the existing topography shown on Map 2.05-E1-BCA1 with the proposed <br />post mining topography shown on Map 2.05-M6, it appears that there is an area just to <br />the north of the lay down area that will be disturbed. However, this area does not appear <br />to be designated as disturbed on Map 2.05-El -BCA2. Please explain. <br />In their November 26, 2008 submittal, Oxbow responded that the post mine topography <br />area in question covers the laydown area. The Division still has a question about this <br />issue, so will approach it in a different way. <br />Comparison of the contour lines on Drawing 2.05-E1-BCA1, "Existing Conditions", with <br />those on Drawing 2.05-E 1-BCA2, "Facilities Layout", shows that no grading of the <br />laydown area is proposed. However, referring to the contour lines shown on Drawing <br />2.05-M6, Sheet 7 of 7, "Facility Post Mine Topography", it appears that there will be <br />regrading of the laydown area and the area just east and north of the laydown area after <br />operations cease and the area is reclaimed. Please explain why the post mine topography <br />map shows regrading of the laydown area and the area east and north of the laydown area <br />when the other two maps show that no grading will occur in those areas? <br />Oxbow response: In the last submittal the laydown area was utilized to permanently <br />store excess material that would be generated during regarding of the pad area. <br />J.lowever, after furt der re-,dew it was dcterrnined that the excess material could be used in <br />the reclar?ration of the Beav Creelf Fan Shaft; thus, the topography in the laydown area <br />w, lZ ; of -e alpered I. :ap 2.0 5 •-EF1-3C 2 has Been revised accordingly. <br />15. The Sedcad designs use a permissivity, or flow rate, value of 14 gal/min/ftz for straw <br />bales. As had been discussed previously in Minor Revision No. 64 back in 2002, the <br />Division and Oxbow's consultant disagreed as to the authenticity of that value. Although <br />the value appears in a published work, the value was corrected in a later publication by <br />two of the three original authors. The Division agreed to the use of the value in MR-64 <br />with a disclaimer added to the permit text. Please either justify Oxbow's position in using <br />this value, revise the straw bale permissivity value accordingly in the Sedcad designs and <br />text or omit from TR-60 the proposed use of straw bales as sediment control. <br />Permit text associated with the Sedcad designs state that a permissivity value of 5.6 <br />gpm/ft2was used in the designs. However, as stated in comment number 7A above, the <br />Division is not clear if that value was actually used in the Sedcad designs. <br />0 Page 4