Laserfiche WebLink
violation of DMG regulations. <br />Colowyo states that it "...simply had no choice but to discharge from the ponds...". <br />Again, Colowyo's ponds are designed to discharge through their principal spillways, <br />during the storm event and shortly after. The problem is that Colowyo chooses not to <br />allow this discharge to occur as indicated in the design approved by DMG, but instead <br />chooses to discharge from a much lower stage (elevation) in the ponds (the manually <br />operated gate) where the water, in terms of sediment concentration, is of poorer quality. <br />8. With regard to Colowyo's requests to change language in the second paragraph of Part <br />B.1. "Effluent Limitations" (Page 8) of the Rationale document, we support WQCD's <br />interpretation of the federal regulations and WQCD's position that the exceedances were <br />permit violations. Colowyo wishes to argue that the exceedances should not be <br />considered permit violations because the permit condition that all manual discharges <br />must meet primary limitations was an unnoticed change from Colowyo's prior permit. <br />Be that as it may, it would appear that Colowyo accepted that prior permit with that <br />condition. <br />9. Colowyo proposes rewording of Pan "VI.A.2., Alternative Limitation Burden of Proof <br />Requirements, Rationale Page 10" on Page 4 of its September 30, 1997 document. <br />Colowyo proposes elimination of the requirement that relief from primary limitations <br />would not be granted when Colowyo has control over the discharge (manually-operated <br />discharge). Colowyo states in the last paragraph on page 4 of its September 30, 1997 <br />memo that `"this language (as proposed by Colowyo) clarifies that for the period during <br />which the ponds are operated in the containment mode, manual discharges are <br />permissible to regain the 10-year, 24-hour storm event capacity for which they were <br />designed. <br />We wish to again point out that Colowyo's ponds are not currently designed to operate <br />in a "containment mode". They aze designed to allow the 10-year, 24-hour event to <br />discharge through their primary spillways and meet settleable solids (alternate) <br />limitations. Water passing through a dewatering tube initiates from an elevation stage <br />in a pond that is lower than the inlet to the principal spillway, thus higher in sediment <br />concentration, thus resulting in poorer quality discharges. <br />We further believe that revising the Rationale in the manner proposed by Colowyo <br />would potentially allow Colowyo to leave its dewatering tubes open for extended <br />periods. During the 3-month+ period of snowmelt, the ponds would then be effectively <br />removed from the sediment collection/water treatment system. We support WQCD's <br />originally proposed Rationale language that relief from primary limitations should not <br />be granted when manual dewatering occurs. <br />10. On Page 6 of the September 30 memo, Colowyo begins commenting on the proposed <br />permit document. In its Section "l. Part I.A.2., Burden of Proof Requirements, Permit <br />Page 5", Colowyo wishes to revise the permit language to again allow for relief from <br />