Laserfiche WebLink
• ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br /> sss <br />WELBORN DUFFORD BROWN £~ TOOLEY. P. C. <br />ROBERT F WELBORN ATTORNEYS AT LAW STEPHEN J. $ULLIVAN <br />PHILIP G DUFFO RD <br />SUITE 1100 DOUGLAS P. RUEGSEGGER <br />~ <br />THOMAS G. BROWN EDWARD D. WHITE <br />DALE i00LEY (193319851 100 BROADWAY PEGGY J. ANDERSON <br />DAVID W FURGABON DENVER. COLORADO 80290-1199 KEITH D. TOOLEY <br />WILLIAM C. ROBE <br />JOHN F. WELBORN <br />TELEPHONE 1303) 861 8013 $ASHA A. KARPOV <br />KATHERINE F. BEC KES <br />BEVERLY) QUAIL TELECO PIER (303) 832 3804 SCOTT J. MIKU LEC KY <br />RICHARD L FP NYO <br />KATHRYN L POWERS <br />PHILLIP D. BARBER <br />GREGORY A. RUEGSEGGER <br />JOHN F. HECK <br />RAN DALL J. FEUERSTEIN <br />February 9, 1988 <br />S. KIRK INGEBRETSEN <br /> Q wY/~,_. <br />~' 6~ ~V ~~ ~~® <br />HAND DELIVERED <br /> FEB ~~ 1988 <br />Mr. Jim Pendleton <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division fIAIhEp lj{Np <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 423 ~'ECLHMAI'~ON <br /> GIV~~;ipN <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re: Trapper Mining Inc.; <br />NOV No. C-87-049 <br />Dear Jim: <br />Trapper Mining Inc. submitted its response regarding the <br />civil penalty for the referenced NOV on January 9, 1988. Trapper <br />stated its belief that no violation occurred. The purpose of <br />this supplemental information is to explain the basis for <br />Trapper's position and to request that the NOV be vacated at the <br />conference scheduled for February 10, 1988. <br />The NOV resulted from a 10-day notice issued by OSM <br />Inspector Rade Orell based on an inspection on December 1- 2, <br />1987. Division representatives also participated in that <br />inspection, including Greg Squire who is the reclamation <br />specialist primarily responsible for the Trapper Mine and who is <br />fully familiar with its permitting and enforcement history. When <br />Mr. Orell raised the alleged violation during the inspection, <br />Mr. Squire declined to issue an NOV. The only reasonable <br />explanation is that no violation existed in Mr. Squire's initial <br />judgment. Nevertheless, two weeks later after receiving the <br />10-day notice, the Division decided to concur in Mr. Orell's <br />evaluation, issued the NOV and advised OSM and Trapper of its <br />action by Mr. Liddle's letter of December 17, 1987. <br />Mr. Squire's initial judgment and Trapper's view that no <br />violation existed was and is correct. Mr. Orell and the <br />Division's subsequent judgment were incorrect because they did <br />not take into account Trapper's permit provisions, the fact that <br />the ditch in question is tributary to a permanent drainageway in <br />the process of being reestablished, and Trapper's prior and <br />planned actions to stabilize the ditch in accordance with its <br />permit and the regulations. <br />