ENFORCE21703 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WELBORN DUFFORD BROWN ~ TOOLEY. P. C. Mr. Jim Pendleton Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division February 9, 1988 Page 5 methods which are to be tailored to the specific operation in the approved permit. The Rule does not make "protected channels or pipes," or any of the other measures, mandatory for every mine for the obvious reason that the individual circumstances of each mine must be considered before appropriate measures and their timing can be determined. Thus, this Rule cannot serve as the basis for the NOV unless the implementing provisions in Trapper's permit were not followed. In this case, the methods suggested in Rule 4.05.5(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) have been included in Trapper's permit and Trapper is implementing them in accordance with the permit terms. Runoff has been diverted from and reduced in the tributary ditch to minimize erosion by construction of the stockponds and revegetation of the drainage area. (See (b), (d), and (f)). All sediment is being retained within the disturbed areas--some in the stockponds above and below the tributary ditch, and most in the Coyote Dam sediment pond to which drainage flows below the ditch. (See (c)). Finally, under the approved drainageway stabilization plan for 1988-92, Trapper will be required to apply appropriate erosion control practices, after the ditch is repaired in 1988. (See page 4-183(a)). Thus, Trapper has been and continues to be in fully compliance with its permit terms implementing Rule 4.05.5(2), and so no violation occurred. Likewise, Rule 4.05.1(4)(b) merely lists eight "acceptable practices to control and minimize water pollution. The NOV does not specify which one Trapper failed to implement so as to cause a violation. But, none of them is mandatory. Rather appropriate choices must be made for each operation in its individual permit. In fact, Trapper's permit calls for and it has implemented several of them, as discussed above. The same conclusion applies here as with Rule 4.05.5(2)(e)--there can be no violation of Rule 4.05.1(4)(b) unless there is a violation of the implementing permit terms, and none has been shown here. Assuming that Rule 4.05.3(3) applies to reestablished drainageways, it is clear that Trapper did not violate this Rule either, The only mandatory provisions in it require prevention of "additional contributions of suspended solids to stream flow and to runoff outside the permit area, to the extent possible using the best technology currently available." As with the other rules cited, it then lists alternative control measures that may be used depending upon the individual circumstances as set forth in the permit.