Laserfiche WebLink
<br />occurred and we do not anticipate recurrence in the future. <br />When the Division raised the issue, Colowyo submitted a minor revision to request an <br />extension of the time frame to spread these piles. Ironically, the NOV was written a$er the NImor <br />Revision was submitted to the Division. Since we have shown that the piles were well vegetated, <br />not eroding and located innon-compromising locations with respect to erosion, a MR should <br />have been sufficient to handle this `paperwork" issue. Moving the topsoil to a stockpile then <br />moving it back to the reclaimed area next year would not be appropriate. <br />The fact that the Division chose to write the NOV after submittal of the MR is indeed, <br />troublesome, especially since the required abatement achieves no more than that proposed by the <br />MR We believe that it was more appropriate to reschedule the spreading of the topsoil via the <br />MR process rather than through a more cumbersome NOV process. As such, since the issue had <br />already been addressed through the MR process it was inappropriate for the Division to respond <br />with a NOV and we therefore, request that this part of the NOV be vacated. <br />We have shown by analyzing each part of the NOV that the issuance ofthe Violation in its <br />entirety was inappropriate. Those parts of the NOV dealing with seeding the piles and placing of <br />topsoil signs were inappropriate because if contradicts with the approved alternative practice <br />addressed in the Permit and spoken of favorably in the past by the Division. The part of the NOV <br />dealing with rescheduled spreading of the topsoil piles was inappropriate because a Minor <br />Revision addressing the issue had already been submitted to the Division. <br />As such, we respectfully request that the entire NOV be vacated. <br />