ENFORCE28355 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IBIA 96-90, 96-91 this doctian=ntation to fulfill the intent of the Colorado pro- ' gram. I concur' with AFO's decision in findisx3 that LNG's response to. alleged violation 3 of 3 constituted appropriate action. The Thtums filed a timely notice of appeal of the Regional Director's decision. The Board docketed that appeal as IBLA 96-91. T111T 'this same time period, LNG was further investigating the alleged damage to the T~tums' water well, and by letter dated June 6, 1995, LNG notified OSM that, based on its technical investigation, it had deter- mined that it was "likely that the water level in the well was influenced by adjacent urr3erground workings aryl exhaust shaft, but that the water well is neither permitted nor is the water right adjudicated with the State Fr'inoar'~s Office;-and the ,operator took, measures to minimize hydrologic impacts in the area o8 the well'." It concluded"tHdC BRI was not in viola- tion of its permit, the Colorado Sluface Coal Minim Reclamation Act or State regulations, and it attache3 a Dopy of its investigative report. In the report, LNG found at page 11 that, although the original ccnplaint had alleged that mining operations had dried up the well, the well contained app*~+~i+n+tely 39 feet of water above the formes' well pump intake level; the well had been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair that inhibited water prochrction; there had been no attest to rehabilitate the well to „a,ri m;ze or maintain its productivity; BRI took appropriate measures to minimize grour~rater inflows during drilling of the borehole and installation of the shaft; monitoring of the well for over a period of a year did not indicate a trend of a falling water table; aryl "[t]he owner of the well has not made a demonstration of injury, or that the capacity of the saturated thiclmess of the formation is naa unable to meet historic .,, By letter dated June 28, 1995, the Deriver Field Office (DFO), OSM, determined, on the basis of ING's June 6, 1995, letter and report, drat LIrG had takasr appropriate action in response to Violation 2 of TDN No. 93-020- 370-005. By letter of the same date, DFU informed the Thtums that it found LNG's actions appropriate with regard to Violation 2 and that OSM would not be corrhicting a Federal inspection or taking any enforcatent action. In a letter dated August 12, 1995, the Thtums r~ sted infornal review of DFO's June 28, 1995, decision, pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 842.15. By decision dated August 24, 1995, the Regional Director, Western Regicmal ~ordinating Center, OSM; issued a decision affirming the DFO's decision. The Thtums filed.a.timely appeal of the Regional Director's decision. Zire Board docketed that: appeal as IBLA 96=90. . ,. ... .. ..!' , ' i.. .... L.LI'~ R' .: '441~y'1 'I •'..' .. .. .. ... ... :I r 151 IBIA 297