Laserfiche WebLink
S- 1. <br /> R <br /> MARCH, MARCH, MYATT, KORB & CARROLL <br /> ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW <br /> ROBERTSON BUILDING <br />' IIO EAST OAK STREET <br />' ARTHUR E. MARCH POST OFFICE BOX 469 TELEPHONE <br />ARTHUR E. MARC H, JR. FORT COLLIN S,COLO RADO 8052 2 AREA CODE 303 <br />RAMSEY O. MYATT <br />MARK L. KORB April 18, 1980 4B:-,~:Z <br />JOSCPH T. CARROLL, JR. <br /> IIL~~- 1 ppY~~-1 ~f\~ <br />~~ Lam. U ~ 'O' 6,r~ <br />U.S. Department of the Interior <br />Office of Surface Mining (riAY - 1 1580 <br />Assessment Office <br />Washington, D.C. 20240 (MINED LAND RECLAMATIOU <br />Re: NOV 80=5-5-5 CDIo. Dept, nt Natural F.esnl~lEOe <br />Operator: The Rockcastle Company , <br />Post. Office Box AA <br />Hayden, Colorado <br />Colorado Permit No. 78-45 <br />Matter: Factual Submittal: 30 CFR 723.16(a) <br />Assessment Officers: <br />On April 10, 1980 Mr. Gary Fritz, a representative of <br />OSM inspected the premises known as the Grassy Creek Coal <br />Mine, Routt County, Colorado. This mine is operated by'The <br />Rockcastle Company under Colorado State Permit No. 78-45. <br />On the day following the inspection Mr. Fritz returned <br />and issued the referenced Notice of Violation which contains <br />two separate violations of 30 CFR 715.17. <br />Because of the shortness of time between the issuance <br />of this Notice of Violation and the time for the factual <br />submittal to the Assessment Office, I have not been able to <br />fully explore all of the facts surrounding the existence or <br />non-existence of surface and ground water monitoring programs <br />on the mine site. I have, however, reviewed the application <br />for the state permit and items of supplemental correspondence, <br />bringiny that application into conformity with the require- <br />ments of the Interim Program prior to the approval of the <br />operator's state permit on May 25, 1978. <br />My review of this information shows to me that the <br />operator submitted adequate materials and data from published <br />sources, site-specific testing and the Colorado Division of <br />Water Resources to support the conclusion of the Colorado <br />Mined Land Reclamation Board that neither ground water nor <br />surface water monitoring were required on this specific <br />site. This decision was made in the context and intepretation <br />of both the state and federal interim programs existent on <br />the date of approval, May 25, 1978. <br />