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. !r ar'y event, our agencies rrjay Differ on t1he aba-ernem <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 />