Laserfiche WebLink
AtlanticR c'hfieldCompany Legal • • III IIIIIIIIIIIII III "' <br />555 Seventeenth Street s <br />Denver, Colorado 80202 p ~' <br />Telephone 303 575 7586 / <br />Peter H. Haller ~ <br />Senlor Attorney <br />s-~:.-,.. ~~.. <br />u ~ _ .. .. ._._, .... ~..., <br />May 24, 1983 <br />Mr. David C. Shelton <br />Director <br />Colorado Mined Land <br />Reclamation Division <br />423 Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Re: NOV No. 83-7 (M t. Gunnison No <br />Dear Mr. Shelton: <br />f~'AY ~.', ;; 1~iN~ <br />~;u~p D.-. ~ ...~; ,..-. .... <br />1 Mine) <br />Thank you for taking the opportunity to meet with Ms. <br />Beville, Mr. Bowman and myself on May 18. As I stated to <br />you during our meeting, I felt that a recent Department <br />of the Interior Board of Surface Mining Hearings and <br />Appeals decision had a significant bearing on the pres- <br />ence of any violation in the Mt. Gunnison matter. I am <br />enclosing a summary of that dec is ion (Consolidation Coal <br />Company, IBSMA 82-14, December 17, 1982) for your infor- <br />mation. Due to the time constraints that we are all <br />operating under, I am not able to provide a copy of the <br />dec is ion itsel f at this time. I am attempting to obta in <br />a copy of it from the Reg Tonal Office of the OSM and wit l <br />forward it to you later this week if I can obtain it. In <br />the meantime, however, I feel that it is important for you <br />to be able to refer to the summary. <br />In this case the Board dismissed a Notice of Violation <br />which had been issued for the failure to provide sedimen- <br />tation ponds to control runoff from an access road and <br />railroad crossing when it found no evidence in the record <br />to show that the runoff from these areas had left the <br />permit area. The Board stated "without some creditable <br />evidence of present or past drainage from the disturbed <br />area flowing off the permit area, an alleged violation of <br />the sedimentation pond requirement cannot be upheld." <br />Although the case dealt with an alleged violation of the <br />OSM's sedimentation pond regulations, it is my strong <br />feeling that the Board's opinion is applicable to the Mt. <br />Gunnison case. Sedimentation ponds (as in the Consoli- <br />dation Coal case) and culverts (as in the Mt. Gunnison <br />