ENFORCE30403 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The proposed civil penalty for C-9Cr006 and C-96-011 were: History $100.00 $50.00 Seriousness $750.00 $1250.00 Fault $750.00 $750.00 Good Faith $0.00 $0.00 Total $]600.00 $2050.00 History Colowyo has received two NOV's during the past twelve months. Seriousness 1 agree with the statement in the proposed penalty for NOV C-96-006. It appears that pumping of the pond diminished designed capacity of the pond to contain or treat disturbed area runoff. This was evidenced by the poor quality water discharging from the pond. At the time of Ms. Crosby's inspection it was only about 1 gpm leaking from the outlet of the headgate culvert pipe. Earlier in March, water was discharging over the primary spillway. No water quality samples were taken. Colowyo opened the headgate but closed it the next day, apparently due to the poor quality water. For purposes of this NOV 1 will estimate that water was discharging at a rate of I gpm from Ure East Taylor Creek pond from the beginning of March until Colowyo discorttirtued pit pumping, approximately April 1. It is unlmown what the water quality was when the primary spillway and headgate were discharging earlier in March, but since pumping was occurring I will conclude it was of similar quality as the sample. For purposes of Uus NOV [ am assessing $1,000.00. I estimate the duration of the discharge was approximately ]month which I consider significant for a poor quality discharge. The extent was small due to low volume. Had Ute volume of discharge been greater, I would have considered it severe. Fault Colowyo was pumping poor quality water from the pit. No records were kept of the volume of water being pumped. When the water ran over the primary spillway March 5, 1996, no samples were obtained. The headgate was opened and shut the next day, apparently due to the poor quality water, but no samples were taken. It was not until March 18, 1996 that water quality samples were obtained. Colowyo was apparently aware of Ute poor quality water and continued pumping into the pond. This set of circumstances: lack of pumping volume data, lack of water quality sample during a discharge from the primary spillway and continued pumping given the fact that the pond was leaking represenu a high level of negligence.