Laserfiche WebLink
SUMMARY <br />- r~Pi [red <br />As noted in the previous section, the following table <br />summarizes the extensive in-place hydrologic control network <br />Colowyo had in service in the West Pit at the time of the <br />Division's July 14, 1994 inspection. Throughout the continuing <br />development of the West Pit, Colowyo was well aware of the <br />Division's concerns for maintaining hydrologic control and <br />believe that the system in-place clearly met all permit <br />requirements as well as regulatory requirements. <br />At the time of the inspection, Colowyo had the overall <br />capability to contain at least 18.66 acre-feet of runoff from <br />topsoil stripped areas compared to a required overall storage <br />capability of 17.23 acre-feet. Based upon our calculations we had <br />1.43 acre-feet of overall excess capacity. <br />If we consider what we believe would be the corrected Division <br />calculation of 125.70 topsoil stripped acres in areas #1 and #2, <br />11.64 acre-feet of storage would be required versus 14.8 acre-feet <br />of in-place storage capacity for 3.16 acre-feet of excess capacity. <br />Further, let us consider a third scenario based upon the <br />Division's calculation of topsoil stripped acreage (125.70 acres) <br />in areas #1 and #2 plus topsoil stockpiles (30.4 acres), for a <br />total of 156.10 acres of disturbance (14.45 acre-feet). Even under <br />this scenario, which Colowyo does not believe is valid, there was <br />still 0.35 acre-feet of excess capacity in-place. <br />We should remember that, throughout this entire discussion, <br />the 10.8:1 ratio is purely theoretical, is extremely conservative <br />and is not based on representative science nor does it take into <br />consideration the existing drought conditions. <br />CONCLUSION <br />We have shown that under a variety of scenarios, using both <br />the Division's numbers and Colowyo's numbers, Colowyo maintained <br />hydrologic control of the West Pit mining area. We had developed <br />a plan and implemented it by the construction of in-pit drainage <br />~~M.~.~t, control structures to provide assurance that the required perimeter <br />sediment control system would function as designed. At the time of • <br />the Division's July 14, 1994 inspection there is no evidence to <br />support the Division's claim that Colowyo had violated either <br />Permit requirements or requirements of the regulations. <br />It would appear that the Division simply chose to ignore the <br />role that the in-pit containment structures have in protecting the <br />hydrologic balance. In doing so, the requirements of Rule <br />4.05.6(3)(a) which state "In determining the runoff volume, the <br />