Laserfiche WebLink
6. Response not accepted. Please provide information in the appropriate portion of the <br />text in Volume 1 that discusses the temporary Prospect sump. Pursuant to Rule <br />2.05.3(4)(a)(ii), the text needs to include a detailed plan for operation and <br />maintenance of the temporary sump, including dewatering, sediment clean-out, <br />inspections and any necessary repairs following storm events. <br />Response: Colowyo will maintain the sump in accordance with the operation and <br />maintenance plan currently in the permit. Each specific impoundment is not <br />discussed in Section 2.05.3(4)(a)iii, and Colowyo sees no need why this sump <br />should be specifically addressed due to its temporary nature. <br />9. Response not accepted. As stated in the general comments section above, it <br />appears as though ditches B and C will be reclaimed in 2010 and ditch A will be <br />reclaimed in 2011. Since these temporary ditches are not included on the spoil <br />grading map, Map 29, it is not intuitive when or how they will be reclaimed based on <br />that map. Please detail the requested timing of the reclamation in Volume 1, Section <br />2.05.4, Reclamation Plan. Please specify in the permit narrative how the measures <br />proposed under TR- 78 will function in combination with the reclamation schedule <br />approved under TR- 80 and Map 29. Please detail the reclamation and timing of <br />each of these temporary ditches and sumps within the reclamation schedule <br />approved in TR-80. <br />Response: Due to the temporary nature of these ditches, Colowyo does not see <br />the need to add them to maps containing reclamation information. Map 29 is <br />meant to show the approximate reclamation blocks. No other specific features <br />are addressed in this map, and therefore Colowyo does not feel that these <br />temporary structures need to be addressed in this map. As stated before, these <br />ditches will be reclaimed in accordance with the reclamation schedule set forth in <br />Map 29. <br />10. Response not accepted. Neither SEDCAD model provided by Colowyo is <br />appropriate at this time for the current on the ground conditions nor the future <br />conditions approved in TR- 80. <br />a. The model submitted for the Prospect Pond in TR-78 used curve numbers that <br />were recently changed under TR-73. Please use the approved curve numbers <br />from TR-73. <br />b. Area F, an un-reclaimed parcel above the sump was inadvertently left out of the <br />Prospect Pond model submitted with TR-78. <br />c. Please include more routing detail in the proposed model given the current <br />conditions in the East Pit. Many permanent and temporary ditches exist, some of <br />considerable length. Increasing the detail should increase the accuracy of <br />modeling efforts. <br />d. The Prospect Pond model needs to reflect the worst-case disturbance for the <br />Prospect drainage given the reclamation schedule provided with TR-80. The <br />currently approved worst-case disturbance modeling (contained in Exhibit 7PP) is <br />based on the old reclamation schedule for the East Pit.