Laserfiche WebLink
iii iiiiiiiiniuiii <br />a ~-, =~ United States Department of the Interior <br />OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING ~ <br />RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT ~~ i <br />,`,~ ~ ,NO SUITE 310 <br />625 SILVER AVENUE, S.W. !n Reply Rrfcr To: <br />ALBUQUERQUE, NEW ME`CICO 87102 <br />May 31, 1991 <br />CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED I i/ <br />P 965 799 189 <br />JUN 6 1991 <br />Mr. Steven G. Renner, Coal Program Supervisor i~llneC <br />Department ofcNaturalnResources ~eyiam3t(On D~ SiOn <br />215 Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re: Response to Ten-Day Letter (TDL) 91-02-370-003 TV4, New Elk Mine, <br />C-81-012 <br />Dear Mr. Renner: <br />The Albuquerque Field Office (AFO) has received the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Division's (NERD) four additional responses to the above <br />listed TDL. Your May 3, 14, and 16, 1991, responses address violation 3 <br />of 4, and your May 6, 1991, response addresses violation 4 of 4. Listed <br />below is the status of the TDL to date. AFO's review of the responses <br />and the decision rendered are final at this time. <br />1 of 4 - MLRD response was found appropriate as of May 1, 1991. No <br />further action is necessary. <br />2 of 4 - MLRD response was found appropriate as of April 22, 1991. <br />No further action is necessary. <br />3 of 4 - AFO has reviewed all MLRD responses, both written and <br />oral, and has found them to be inappropriate. The responses <br />indicate two positions: (1) That the structures cited are not <br />sedimentation ponds; and (2) that approval of these structures and <br />their respective watersheds as small area exemptions (SAE's) will <br />suffice to correct the violation. AFO disagrees with both of the <br />positions offered for the following reasons: <br />AFO understands MLRD to say that the catchment areas and sumps are <br />not sedimentation ponds because the structures are non-discharging, <br /> <br />