My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE23730
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE23730
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:32:52 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:30:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/8/1994
Doc Name
COLOWYO MINE C-81-019 NOV C-94-015
From
DMG
To
LARRY ROUTTEN
Violation No.
CV1994015
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
.~ <br />Y <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Deparlmenl of Natural Resources <br />131 3 Sherman 81., Room 215 <br />Denver, Culorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 8663567 <br />FAl(: (3031 832-8106 <br />DATE: August 8, 1994 <br />TO: Larry Routten <br />FROM: Susan Burgmaier <br />~~~~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Rnmer <br />Go.-ernor <br />Ken Salazar <br />Eaecuu~e Dueclor <br />m¢hael B. Lung <br />RE: Colowyo Mine (C-81-019) Division Drteaor <br />Notice of Violation No. C-94-015 <br />Per your request, I have prepared what I hope is a succinct response to Colowyo's reasons for <br />requesting that the above mentioned NOV be vacated. The numbers used herein correspond <br />the order of their document. <br />1. Colowyo states that in order to develop the initial West Pit box cut, a total of 313 acres <br />must be stripped of topsoil in 1994. If that is the required stripping area, Colowyo should <br />submit drainage control plans for at least 313 disturbed acres. <br />2. I agree. <br />3. I agree. <br />4. I agree. <br />5. Colowyo states that my estimate of 195 stripped acres should be discounted by 38.9 acres <br />since that area drains to "Drainage Structure #3:' That structure is a combination of two <br />impoundments created by constructing embatilmients. The following should be <br />considered: <br />a) Unless Colowyo has some sort of proof (certified statement from an <br />engineer) that on July 14, 1994 the combined capacity was at least 3.6 acre <br />feet, and that the structures were non-discharging, we cannot agree that <br />this was adequate runoff control for 38.9 acres and that this area should be <br />excluded from the West Pit pond drainage area. <br />b) Colowyo had not obtained prior approval for these structures, which due <br />to their construction, would be required. Normally, a technical revision <br />application would have to be made, and Colowyo would have to submit <br />designs and plans for pond construction. The ponds would be required to <br />be in compliance with Rule 4.05.6, which address construction, capacity, <br />and spillway requirements. Colowyo had not demonstrated compliance <br />with these requirements either before or after construction of these ponds. <br />6. Colow~o states that "initial construction of control structure #2 was completed next, <br />providing for an estimated 2 acre feet of capacity." The following should be considered. <br />a) At the time of my July 12th inspection, there was no "structure #2" in <br />place. Equipment operators were dust starting an embankment structure <br />in the vicimty of the current location for "structure #2." When I asked <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.