Laserfiche WebLink
110 <br />COAL <br />s. COMPANY ¢�� <br />�•AEOPLE PRODUCT10lz <br />relating to West Pit Fill Ditch and East Taylor Pond Ditch were last revised <br />pursuant to TR -96, submitted July 30, 2012 and approved September 27, 2012. <br />The data in the approved Table 1 prior to the changes proposed herewith via <br />TR -97 are the data that appear in Table 1 in that recently approved TR -96. <br />Current Division comments: It is not clear that Colowyo addressed the <br />information request. Please explain the reasons for all of the changes in Table <br />1. It was anticipated that the only changes would be the liner types for two <br />channels, but many more changes were made. For example, why was there a <br />change in the division of reaches for Prospect Ditch? (There are now three <br />reaches instead of two.) Another example is the West Pit Fill ditch. For this <br />ditch, why is Table 1 different than the post -TR96 version (which is the <br />version in the PAP)? Was the wrong version updated for the TR97 submittal? <br />Colowyo's Response: <br />Colowyo sincerely apologizes for the confusion on Table 1. With the initial <br />submittal of Table 1 under TR -98, Colowyo mistaking submitted the previous <br />approved version of Table 1 which was approved under MR -118. Colowyo <br />should have revised Table 1 which was approved under TR -96. Therefore, <br />Colowyo has updated Table 1 to include the approved TR -96 version and <br />included the changes necessary under TR -98. The Taylor Ditch has been <br />updated on Table 1 to reflect the fact that this ditch was designed to be a <br />vegetative lined triangular channel. However, on the ground Colowyo built a <br />trapezoidal ditch with a 12 -foot minimum bottom with and 3:1 sides slopes. <br />Therefore, the bottom width for Taylor Ditch has been revised to a zero to <br />reflect the fact that the ditch was designed to be triangular to be consistent <br />with the permit text in Exhibit 7 -14L. <br />Additionally, the additional change (new reach) for Prospect Ditch was to <br />reflect actual on the ground conditions to include the mitigation work <br />Colowyo performed last year on the lower reach. As Colowyo staff stated to <br />you during your site inspection on March 20, 2013, this section was included <br />to capture this change and it was not conveyed to the Division prior. Colowyo <br />also apologizes for this oversight. <br />2. For the Prospect Ditch, please explain the relationships of the model elements. <br />In particular, it is unclear how subwatersheds were delineated. Some are very <br />large (subwatershed L), and some are only on one side of the channel (L, M, <br />K). Also, why does subwatershed L all drain to Structure #39? Some of it <br />should possibly drain Structure #30. <br />A mining property of Western Fuels- Colorado, A Limited Liability Company <br />