Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />• III III III III IIII III <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />7313 Sherman St., Raom 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />303 866-3567 <br />Fn x: 303 832-6106 <br />August 1, 1590 <br />Mr. Robert Hagen, Director <br />Albuquerque Field Office <br />Office of Surface Mining <br />Reclamation and Enforcement <br />625 Silver Avenue, S.W., Suite 310 <br />Albuquerque, NM 87102 <br />Re: Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine (Permit No. C-84-065), <br />Response to Ten-Day Notice X-90-02-351-1 TV-5 <br />Dear Mr. Hagen: <br />pF COCO <br />NC /_. <br />R~ ~A~ <br />,a <br />~ lel6 ~ <br />Roy Romer, <br />Governor <br />Fretl R. Banta. <br />Division Direoior <br />This letter will serve as the Division's written response to the Ten-Day <br />Notice issued as a result of a citizens' request for inspection. The Ten-Day <br />Notice was received by the Division on July 20, 1990, however the inspection <br />under Rule 5.02.5 was conducted on July 24, 1990. Our offices agreed that <br />this response would be due in the same time frame as our response to <br />Mr. MCKennis and Ms. Johnson, namely within 10 days of the inspection. <br />Issue 1. The first alleged violation in the Ten-Day Notice combined the <br />first and third issues of the citizens' complaint. As alleged, pieces of <br />insulation and plywood were found on the hillside at least 100 feet or so from <br />the water tank near the west portal. Apiece of-decaying-Mirafi-fabric-was -- <br />also found near the southeast corner of Sediment Pond A. It is the Division's <br />position that this material does not constitute non-coal waste that is being <br />disposed of, and that no damage to topsoil, vegetation, or water quality has <br />taken place. The operator has informed the Division that the ~paterial has <br />been cleaned up though we have been unable to reinspect the site. Regardless, <br />at the time of the inspection there was no violation of the Rule cited in the <br />Ten-Day Notice. Therefore, the Division is declining to take an enforcement <br />action at this time. <br />Issue 2. This corresponds to Issue 2 in the citizens' letter, and alleges a <br />violation of Rule 4.05.7. The material in question is in fact a ditch lining <br />which was placed below a bed of rip-rap in the ditch inlet. Despite normal <br />wear of the fabric, it is still functioning to minimize erosion in the inlet, <br />and there is no violation of Rule 4.05.7. The Division is not therefore <br />taking an enforcement action at this time. <br />STA'I~OF COLOR-ADO <br />r~ <br />