GENERAL39013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

., i ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF h11NERALS AND GEOLOGY Deparlmem of Natural Resources 1713 Sherman St.. Room ?15 Denver, Colorado 80'_03 Phone: L'03) 666 3567 FAS 1303183'_-H106 December 22, 1999 DIVISION O F MINERALS GEOLOGY R E C L A M A T I O N MI NING•SAFETY Lori Potter e'll °,.e", Co•: ernnr Kelly/Haglund/Garnsey & Kahn LLC ereR E. warner 1441 18th Street Enec°""e D"e"°r Suite 300 ""`h'ey s `°ns Drvin°n Dveaor Denver CO 80202-1255 Re: Response to Comments, Red Canyon Quatry, M-85-043 Dear Ms Potter: The Division reviewed your comments, and Mr. Fifield's reports, regarding the corrective action requirement pursuant to the DMG's June 4, 1999 inspection report. In addition, the watershed report submitted by the operator has been reviewed. The last paragraph of your November 9, 1999 letter, in part, states that you believe the Division should "find the quarry's corrective action plan inadequate, and that the Board issue a cease and desist order to the quarry." The Division, generally, does not cite an operator for a possible violation if a corrective action is inadequate. The Division allows the operator time to correct whatever deficiencies that are found in the corrective action submittal. In this case, the operator will be allowed 30-days to correct any deficiencies. However, if the operator refuses to correct the noted inadequacies, or the response to the corrective action is extremely late, the Division will send a "Reason to Believe" letter informing the operator that a possible violation may exist and require that the operator appear before the Mined Land Reclamation Board. If the Board finds a violation of [he Act/Rules they may issue a cease and desist order. Bttt only if a violation occurs. A copy of your comments has been sent to the operator so he may have the opportunity to respond to Mr. Fifield's reports. In addition, the Division wishes to address Mr. Fifield's statements since, it appears, he has misinterpreted the June 4, 1999 inspection report. Also, it does not appear that Mr. Fifield has a clear understanding of the quarry operation. First, Mr. Fifield's firs[ paragraph, where he cites from [he June 4, 1999 inspection report, states that "such a conclusion means smaller diameter particles were also transported downstream." The inspection report does, in fact, state that "most of the fine sediments were scoured out and carried downstream." This is in reference to the storm events that occurred at the site during April and May, and also in reference to the runoff conveyed down Red Creek. The runoff in Red Creek is not collected, or retained, in the sedimentation pond. It is allowed to travel downstream