My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE27652
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE27652
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:35:12 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:41:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/8/1994
Doc Name
COLOWYOS REQUEST FOR VACATION OF NOV C-94-015 C-81-019
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.
/
2
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 />.~ <br />z <br />a. Two days prior to the inspection which resulted in the <br />NOV, two of the three structures did not exist. <br />b. There are conflicting reports from company <br />representatives regarding the construction of these structures <br />and whether they were impoundments or the initial box cut for <br />the pit. I was told the pit would be started some time in <br />August. The "in pit" containment structures appeared and <br />increased in size by several orders of magnitude in the days <br />immediately following issuance of the NOV. <br />4. If the structures discussed by Colowyo are not "in pit" <br />structures, they would not satisfy the regulatory requirements for <br />sediment control. Rules 4.05.2 and 4.05.6 require that sediment <br />control structures be designed and approved prior to construction. <br />None of the structures discussed by Colowyo are in the mine permit. <br />The Division certainly has no need to regulate in pit activities in <br />relation to surface water runoff. However, construction of <br />impoundments with large embankments during or prior to initiation <br />of a box cut with the intent of containing surface runoff does not <br />seem to be in pit mining activity. I believe these structures, if <br />they are to be built, should be go through normal permitting <br />procedures. The Division's understanding at the time we approved <br />the West Pit revision, was that no more than 124 acres would be <br />disturbed unless and until a second sediment control structure was <br />permitted and built or until the pit intercepted runoff from any <br />additional acreage. This was not the case on July 14, 1994. <br />cc: Susan Burgmaier <br />c:\wp51\8894 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.