Laserfiche WebLink
59. This question has not yet been addressed. • <br />60. Three copies of the "Water Rights Investigation and Plan for <br />Augmentation for the Yoast Mine" are included with this <br />response package for inserting into .Attachment 16-1, Tab 16, <br />Volume VIII of the Yoast PAP. The Plan has recently been <br />submitted to the District Court for Water District 57 for <br />approval. Once SCC receives documentation of approval from <br />the court, the documentation will be forwarded to DMG. <br />61. The average pit inflow rate for the Fudge coal and overburden <br />units on the Grassy Creek side was calculated by dividing the <br />total pit inflow for the four years (Years 1996 to 1999 on <br />Tables 17-2 and 17-3) by the total number of days of pit <br />inflow calculated for the overburden (1244992 gals/633 days = <br />1967 gals/day), since a majority of the annual inflow totals <br />are from the overburden. The numbers are different than those <br />originally submitted for the average rate of pit inflow on the <br />Grassy Creek. side for the reasons cited in the response to <br />Question 57c. <br />62. As was discussed during the February 1, 1995 meeting in <br />Denver, GeoT:rans, Inc. has written a proprietary digital model <br />for SCC to calculate pit inflows. All input values to the <br />model are presented in Attachment 17-2 and all output values <br />are shown on Tables 17-2 through 17-5. <br />63. SCC has revised the discussion regarding the peak of TDS • <br />concentration for the spoil discharge: in the subsection titled <br />"Water Chemistry and Flow Inferences Based on Seneca II <br />Monitoring Results". The revised portion provides elaboration <br />of SCC's interpretation of the lysimeter data, and references <br />chemical reactions controlling the TDS values measured at the <br />USGS lysimeter sites. <br />64. CDMG interpz•eted the language on Page 45 of Tab 17 to imply <br />that removal of the ponds will change or eliminate the impact <br />of spoil discharge on Annand Draw and Grassy Creek. SCC's <br />original language only intended to qualify the duration of the <br />impact. The language has been revised to further clarify the <br />intent of the language. <br />65. The original Table 17-2 showed the incorrect units for <br />transmissivi.ty. The correct units (ft2/day) for <br />transmissivi.ty are included on Tablets 17-2 through 17-5. <br />66. See SCC's response to comment No. 49. <br />N/A During the February 1, 1995 meeting between SCC and CDMG <br />personnel in. Denver, the CDMG requested SCC to expand the last <br />full paragre~ph on Page 14 of the PH<: (Tab 17) to clarify the' <br />reestablishment of ground water flow in replaced spoil • <br />16 <br />