Laserfiche WebLink
• -66- <br />this design. The two centrally located drainages; we have a diversion ditch <br />throughout those around the facility. The 100-year 24-hour storm peak flow <br />through that ditch is about 228 CFS, which is a reasonably good sized flow. <br />The ditch has been sized to handle flows, peak flows about 7 times that. So 7 <br />times the 100-year 24-hour peak flow -- very substantial flow. <br />The other drainages all miss the facility, by design, and head directly down <br />}o the Rito Seco not encountering any of our design facilities, with the <br />exception of culverts to make sure that they pass underneath the haul roads. <br />MR. DANIEL SON: This seems to show four tributaries going into the heap <br />leach area. You said one of them actually for this where? <br />MR. JOHNSON: This one actually comes in downstream in the borrow area. <br />• MR. DANIEL SON: These two are routed around. What about the fourth one? <br />MR. JOHNSON: That one is a very, very small local drainage which I think <br />in actual fact routes this way. If not, it has been incorporateo in the <br />diversion ditch design around the facility. <br />MR. MASSE Y: I'd like to ask John, if I may. I'm sorry, I diidn't mean to <br />interrupt their questions for Jim. The allegation that this -- that the leach <br />pad is located in heap leach -- in a 100-year flood plain has been something <br />that I want to get crystal clear on record, because that's been bunted about <br />in the paper as well as at the hearing and we believe its fundamentally <br />wrong. I'd like John just to address precisely where the flood plain is and <br />-- John, is that leach pad located in the 100-year flood plain? <br />MR. HALEPASKA: No, it's not. <br />MR. MASSEY: Okay. Go ahead, if you have anything more to say about that. <br />• MR. HALEPASKA: Well, the whole purpose of going through the analysis <br />