ENFORCE23730

• 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

.~
Y

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Deparlmenl of Natural Resources
131 3 Sherman 81., Room 215
Denver, Culorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAl(: (3031 832-8106
DATE: August 8, 1994
TO: Larry Routten
FROM: Susan Burgmaier
~~~~~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Rnmer
Go.-ernor
Ken Salazar
Eaecuu~e Dueclor
m¢hael B. Lung
RE: Colowyo Mine (C-81-019) Division Drteaor
Notice of Violation No. C-94-015
Per your request, I have prepared what I hope is a succinct response to Colowyo's reasons for
requesting that the above mentioned NOV be vacated. The numbers used herein correspond
the order of their document.
1. Colowyo states that in order to develop the initial West Pit box cut, a total of 313 acres
must be stripped of topsoil in 1994. If that is the required stripping area, Colowyo should
submit drainage control plans for at least 313 disturbed acres.
2. I agree.
3. I agree.
4. I agree.
5. Colowyo states that my estimate of 195 stripped acres should be discounted by 38.9 acres
since that area drains to "Drainage Structure #3:' That structure is a combination of two
impoundments created by constructing embatilmients. The following should be
considered:
a) Unless Colowyo has some sort of proof (certified statement from an
engineer) that on July 14, 1994 the combined capacity was at least 3.6 acre
feet, and that the structures were non-discharging, we cannot agree that
this was adequate runoff control for 38.9 acres and that this area should be
excluded from the West Pit pond drainage area.
b) Colowyo had not obtained prior approval for these structures, which due
to their construction, would be required. Normally, a technical revision
application would have to be made, and Colowyo would have to submit
designs and plans for pond construction. The ponds would be required to
be in compliance with Rule 4.05.6, which address construction, capacity,
and spillway requirements. Colowyo had not demonstrated compliance
with these requirements either before or after construction of these ponds.
6. Colow~o states that "initial construction of control structure #2 was completed next,
providing for an estimated 2 acre feet of capacity." The following should be considered.
a) At the time of my July 12th inspection, there was no "structure #2" in
place. Equipment operators were dust starting an embankment structure
in the vicimty of the current location for "structure #2." When I asked