ENFORCE37683

• Permit No: C1981022
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 2/9/2006
• Doc Name: Request for Vacation Memo
• From: Jim Stark
• To: David Berry
• Violation No.: CV2006001
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 275
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
RAD O
O N O F
RALS
EOLOGY
CL~NATION•NININO
S~FETY•SCIENCE
Bill Owens
Governor
INTEROFFICE
Rllsseil George
MEMORANDUM Executive Director
Ronald W. rattany
Division Director
TO: Dave Berry Natural Resource Trustee
FROM: Jim Stark
SUBJECT: NOV CV-2006-001 -Oxbow Request for Vacation
DATE: 9 February 2006
On 18 January 2006 I inspected the Elk Creek and Sanborn Creek Mines with Jim Kiger.
On that inspection we visited the Hubbard Creek Fan site. The fan site was the site of
some drilling work as permitted by Technical Revision 51. TR-51 allowed for the
drilling of two boreholes. One borehole was to remove water from the current mining
operations in the D-Seam and the other borehole was to sump water into the B-Seam of
the old Somerset Mine. On the inspection I noted a third hole had also been drilled and
cased, which I was told was drilled as a Gob Vent Borehole. I noted this and did not
think much more of it, as Oxbow permitted 15 GVB's with the submittal and approval of
Technical Revision 53. Upon returning to the office I checked the TR-53 submittal for
the GVB at the Hubbard Creek Fan site. Since this hole was not permitted with either
permitting action (TR-51 or TR-53), I issued Notice of Violation CV-2006-001. Below
is a response to the 6 February 2006 Oxbow request for vacation of this violation.
The permitting chronology and issues in each technical revision presented by Oxbow in
their 6 February 2006 letter is correct (except they omitted Technical Revision 53). The
Hubbard Creek Fan site was permitted with Technical Revision 49. As with many
construction projects, issues arise in the field that require minor alterations to the original
plans. The need to make these minor changes is understood,by the Division and it is the
reason the Division requires operators to submit as-built certifications. (Rule 4.05.9(14))
The Division agrees with Oxbow that submitting the as-built drawings for the fan site
was the correct way to address the issue of field changes to the original designs and to
ensure that the structures were properly constructed. Oxbow submitted the as-built
information with Technical Revision 52. Neither of these revisions (TR-49 or TR-52)
addressed the drilling of any boreholes. It should be noted that the pad site and drainage
off of and around the site was very well done. This includes afresh-water diversion ditch
and a ditch to sediment pond F.
Office of Office of Colorado
Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines Geological Survey