My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE29308
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE29308
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:36:21 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:13:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980001
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
5/20/1993
Doc Name
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Violation No.
CV1993023
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.
/
4
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
1 <br />SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-93-023 <br />Assessment l:Ci1L !lt C171Gtl owuu~ary <br />NOV C-93-023 was issued by Susan Morrison of the Division for <br />"[F]ailure to pass drainage from disturbed areas through a <br />sedimentation pond, a series of sedimentation ponds, or a treatment <br />facility before leaving the permit area". The NOV applied to a <br />water pump pad located adjacent to Trout Creek, northwest of the <br />Moffat Mining Area sedimentation pond. Ms. Morrison explained that <br />the small (less than 500 square foot) pump pad located <br />approximately 100 feet from the creek was not routed through a <br />sediment pond or other sediment control measures, and had not been <br />approved as a small area exemption. She stated that rills were <br />observed to extend from the pad to the bank of Trout Creek, and <br />that the surface of the pad was muddy, not a uniform gravel <br />surface. The rills were not flowing at the time of the inspection <br />and no deposition of sediment was noted adjacent to the stream. <br />The Operator representatives argued that the pad area had been <br />rocked to provide alternate sediment control, and that the pad was <br />essentially the terminus of a light use road and had been <br />specifically approved by the Division as a part of the light use <br />road. They further noted that there was no indication of <br />environmental damage, and that the Division had inspected the site <br />on numerous occasions without indicating concerns. <br />Fact of Violation <br />My review of applicable permit documents and inspection reports <br />indicates that the Division did approve the light use road which <br />provides access to the pump pad and had indeed inspected the pad <br />site without noting problems on several occasions. I could not <br />find documentation of small area exemption sediment control <br />approval for the pad, nor could I find evidence that the pad was <br />approved as a component of the light use road. The facility does <br />not appear to be depicted on permit area maps. Permit narrative <br />appears to be limited to a statement on Page 3.5-1 that "{T}he <br />light use road will be used to access Trout Creek for obtaining <br />water for dust control. The final placement of the road will be <br />field designed and dependent upon the as-built configuration of the <br />sedimentation pond and on-site topography". <br />Based on the above, I find that a violation did occur. A pumping <br />facility was clearly contemplated in the permit application, but no <br />detailed plan including alternate sediment controls and small area <br />exemption demonstration was provided. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.