Laserfiche WebLink
was available or 39.8 acre-feet more than required <br />(a 137% safety factor). <br />c) In addition, the information shows that using the <br />ratio of 8.37 acres/acre-foot for the 25 year, 24 <br />hour precipitation event (from TR-27) structure #2 <br />would be required to contain 27.37 acre-feet of <br />water for the area not draining to the West Pit <br />Pond. On July 18, 1994, structure #2 was capable <br />of containing 50.3 acre-feet or 22.93 acre-feet <br />more than required (a 84% safety factor). <br />d) Structure #3 provided an additional level of safety <br />with it's 5.7 acre-feet of additional storage. <br />2) On December 17, 1994, Mr. Steven Hinkemeyer certified <br />another West Pit drainage analysis and that as of <br />September 28, 1994 (our aerial flight date): <br />a) Colowyo was again draining 83.7 acres of the <br />allotted 124 acres to the West Pit Pond. <br />b) For the entire West Pit 29 acre-feet of storage was <br />required and 81.5 acre-feet was available ( a 181% <br />safety factor). <br />c) In addition, structure #2 must still remain capable <br />of containing 27.37 acre-feet of water for the 25 <br />year, 24 hour precipitation event. On September <br />26, 1994, structure #2 was capable of containing 63 <br />acre-feet of water or 35.63 acre-feet more than <br />required (a 130% safety factor). <br />It is important to note that by September 28, 1994, <br />approximately 83,300 BCY of excess spoil had been hauled from the <br />West Pit excavation to the West Pit fill toe area. This mining <br />process is continuing and both the West Pit and fill areas are <br />developing and providing additional storage capacity on a daily <br />basis. As such, any discussion regarding the 124 acre issue is now <br />in reality, a pointless endeavor. <br />Finally, in-pit structure #3 has recently been blasted in <br />preparation for overburden removal and is no longer functional. <br />Conclusion <br />Colowyo firmly believes that in-pit containment structures are <br />exempt from regulation and Division review. Moreover, we continue <br />to believe that just as the Division has no authority to apply Rule <br />4.03 Road Standards to in-pit roads, the Division has no authority <br />for applying Rule 4.05.6 sedimentation pond standards to as built <br />in-pit containment structures. <br />We have also shown that during the West Pit development <br />process by constructing in-pit containment structures, Colowyo not <br />only protected the environment and the West Pit Pond from potential <br />damage but we also met the obligations of the permit requirements. <br />However, in the interest of continued cooperation between <br />