Laserfiche WebLink
/ ~. <br />G <br />what was being constructed, I was told it was the beginning of the box cut. <br />Most box cuts are not started with the construction of an embanlanent. <br />b) Also during my July 12th inspection, the operator told me that they had <br />previously placed "structure #2" in a different location, but were having to <br />move it. It should be noted that at the time of that inspection, there was <br />no "structure #2" in place in any location. It seems odd that they would <br />remove the old structure before constructing the new one, or that they <br />would start the initial box cut in one place and then change then minds. <br />i~ <br />c) At the time of my July 14th inspection, "structure 2' was in place, but the <br />volume of that structure was undetermined. <br />d) This structure was an impoundment created by a combination of excavation <br />and embankment construction. As stated previously, ponds of this type <br />require Division approval prior to construction, and are subject to design <br />requirements set forth in Rule 4.05.6. <br />7) Colowyo states that their "overall West Pit plan called for increasing the size of structure <br />#2 substantially.::' Colowyo's "overall plan" had not yet been implemented at the time <br />of either inspection, therefore drainage control was insufficient. <br />8) Colowyo states that the Division estimate of 195 acres was incorrect, and lists a number <br />of reasons the acreage figure should be reduced. <br />Our estimate of 195 acres stripped was a reasonable estimate made with available <br />equipment. Whether it was 195 acres or Colowyo's estimate of 186 acres, it was <br />definitely in excess of the 124 acre commitment. <br />Colowyo further states, "First, as required byy Rule 4.05.6(3)(a), this figure should be <br />reduced by the 38.9 acres of strippin~ area #3 flowing to control structure #3 and ~1 <br />to the West Pit Pond (structure #1). <br />As stated previously, Colowyo has no demonstration that at the time of the July <br />14th inspection, these ponds were adequate to contain the specified runoff. <br />Colowyo asserts, "Secondly, our understanding is that this acreage figure included topsoil <br />stripped areas plus all topsoil stockpiles. Topsoil stockpiles (30.4 acres) were not <br />intended to be included in the acreage calculation with respect to the '124 acre' issue <br />because a) they would not exhibit the same runoff characteristics as topsoil stripped <br />areas, b) half of each stockpile drains away from the stripped areas into adjacent <br />unstrapped areas, c) not all stockpiles were completed and some could not drain <br />externally and d) Colowyo's acreage commitment was cleazly stated as only 'topsoil <br />stripped' areas." My response is: <br />a) Whether topsoil stockpiles exhibit the same runoff characteristics or not, <br />they cleazly were contributing runoff and sediment to the West Pit pond. <br />b) Even if half of the stockpiles drain to unstrapped azeas, the entire area is <br />still tributary to the West Pit pond. <br />c) If proper drainage of the stockpiles was contingent on their construction <br />being complete, then Colowyo should have desrgned and implemented <br />temporary runoff control. At the time of the inspection, these azeas were <br />NOV G49-015 2 August 8, 1994 <br />