Laserfiche WebLink
\~ <br />H~ <br />rtr. kiehaal D. tong 2 <br />renewal of the permit for the area. It has also been acknowledged that <br />the area noted in this part of the TDF vu seeded in years preceding the <br />approval of the permanent program. Hwevez, BIRD finds that this would <br />fall under the normal standards for planting and should not be maae part <br />of the certification process far the out-of-pit spoil sump due to the <br />cotutruetioa certification waiver. <br />AFt7 finds !!TKO's zasponse to violation 1 of 2 to be good cause for not <br />taking action. It is apparent that the requirement for or against <br />certi_`iurion hu not bean adequately addressed in permitting. AFG now <br />recognizes that it is identified and will be addressed in the nex: round <br />of permitting for future reference. <br />Tne TDB cites Colorado CCR 4.07-2 Section L.05.2(1) as the regulation <br />believed to have been violated for violation 2 of 2. Tne TDB states <br />that the operator failed to pass all surface drainage from the disturbed <br />area through a sediment pond or a treatment facility before leaving the <br />permit area. <br />l4LRD's response indicates that the drainage from the area cited in the <br />TDh is not being passed through a sediment pond oz a treatment facility. <br />Instead, it is included in a "small area exemption" granted by the <br />Division for drainage control for the area under Section 4.05(3) o: the <br />Colorado regulations. <br />AFO hu reviewed the supporting documentation for the acreage cited in <br />the 1TH. and concurs with lIIRD that it is included in a "small area <br />exemption." The information does not, however, refer to demonstrations <br />presented by the operator that would clearly shoe that drainage control <br />from the area is "exempted" from passing through sediment pones oz <br />treatment facilities. Exemptions may be authorized only if the <br />disturbed surface drainage complies with applicable State and Federal <br />water-pualiry requiremenu for downstream receiving waters. <br />fiFO has not found evidence in the HLRD response to iustify that no <br />violation exists. Please submit additional information for Ibis o:_ice <br />to review in regard to this part of the TDF within 10 working saws o: <br />the receipt of this correspondence. upon review o: the additional <br />information, a finding will be mass by this office for violatior, 2 0`_ 2. <br />if you disagree with the findings of this office, you may zeauest ar. <br />informal review in accoraance with 30 CFT. 842.211(b)(1)(iii)(A). Ir you <br />have other puestions regazding this correspondence, piece call Gary <br />Fritz at {505) 766-1486. <br />Sincerely, <br />~kobezt H. Hagen, 17~rectoz <br />Plbuouerpue Fial,$ Office <br />