Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Steven G. Renner 2 <br />The abatement measure ordered was to reestablish by July 17, 1993, the <br />design configuration approved in the permit. Twenty days later and before <br />the abatement date set in your NOV had expired, the AFO issued your <br />agency a TDN citing the same violation, but outlining different abatement <br />measures than those contained in your NOV. I have been informed that your <br />NOV has now been terminated, indicating that the abatement work ordered <br />has been performed. <br />From my viewing of the visual evidence, it is apparent that material from the <br />pre -law refuse pile is eroding into the diversion ditch at certain locations, <br />although it is not clear whether the cause of this instability is the diversion <br />itself. !n any event, while our agencies may differ on the abatewent-. <br />measures necessary to keep the diversion functional, I find that your <br />enforcement action requiring cleaning and reshaping of the diversion is, at <br />least in the short term, an acceptable method of maintaining the diversion <br />ditch in a functional condition. - Accordingly, your response to the TDN is not <br />found to be arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion under the Colorado <br />program. <br />Nonetheless, I share the AFO's concern about whether the abatement <br />measures you ordered, which I assume have been fully completed, will result <br />in a long term solution that will assure the diversion ditch is functioning <br />properly. Therefore, I am hereby asking the AFO Director to conduct any <br />necessary oversight follow -up inspections of the diversion and refuse pile <br />and, if additional violations are occurring, to use the TDN process to secure <br />more permanent abatement through measures that could include stabilizing <br />portions of the pre -law refuse pile that are affecting the ditch. <br />Sincerely, <br />Deputy Director <br />