Laserfiche WebLink
<br />f <br />contributing runoff to the West Pit pond. <br />d) If Colowyo's acreage commitment was intended only for topsoil stripped <br />areas, they should have had approved drainage control structures in place <br />for the topsoil stockpiles. They did not. Instead, at the time of the <br />inspection, the stockpiles were contributing runoff to the West Pit pond. <br />9) I agree with their acreage estimates, but for the reasons stated above do not concur with <br />their assumption that adequate drainage control was in place. <br />SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION <br />Colowyo asserts that the "Division simply chose to ignore the role that the in-pit <br />containment structures have in protecting the hydrologic balance." Colowyo cites Rule <br />4.05.6(3)(a), which requires that, when designing sediment control structures, the operator <br />consider chazacteristics of the minesite and reclamation procedures and onsite sediment <br />control practices. I do not believe the intent of this rule is for the Division to make this <br />assessment when contemplating enforcement action. When I issued this notice, I did <br />however consider that there was no hazd evidence that the in place structures were <br />adequate to control runoff from all stripped areas. Rather, it appeared that based on the <br />azea stripped and the known capacity of the West Pit pond, there was not adequate <br />runoff and sediment control. <br />When the Division approved the West Pit pond drainage control glary we were allowing <br />Colowyo to strip a maximum of 124 acres so long as the West Pit pond was the sole <br />containment structure. As the reviewing hydrologrst, my understanding was that until a <br />pit was in place or sediment pond was in place, Colowyo. would not stnp more than 124 <br />acres. At the time, Colowyo had pplans to design and construct another sediment pond <br />southwest of the West Pit fond. "In pit structures" were not contemplated. Since there <br />were at least 186 acres stnpped and there was no pit or additional approved sediment <br />pond in place, it is my contention that Colowyo was not in compliance with the <br />requirements of the Rules and Regulations or of their approved operations plan. <br />If you or Mike Long have any questions or need more information regazding NOV C-94-015, <br />let me know. <br />sn.n\oaos94.wr <br />m:\coa l\cl b\ti94015. W P <br />NOV G94-015 3 August 8, 1994 <br />