GENERAL37420 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I>3i~1.96-90, 96-91 this doCtmientati.cm to fulfill the intent of the Oolorado pro- gram. Z oauur with AFCJ's decision in fi[rlisrj that LNG's nespcose to alleged violation 3 of 3 constitute3 ~a*~ action. . Rbe Tatums filed a timely notice of appeal of the Regional Director's decisiai. 1Y~e Board doclaeted that appeal as IBLA 96-91. During this sane time period, DrG was further imrestigating the alleged danage to the Tatums' water well, and by letter dated June 6, 1995, ING 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 t"~~ ~*+^~*+~ workings and ~r+~ shaft, but that the water well is neither permitted nor is the water right adjudicated with the State fingineer's Office;-and the operator took,measines to minimize hydrologic impacts in the area of the'we1T." It coa~cluded'thab HRI was not in viola- tion of its permit, the Colorado Surface Opal Mixiing Rec].anation Act or State regulations, and it attached a Dopy of its irnestigative report. In the report, LNG fouiri at page 11 that, although the original. oaiplaint had alleged that mining operations had dried up the well, the well contained apprrnrinetely 39 feet of water above the former well pub intake level; the well had been allvved to fall into a state of disrepair that inhibited water prtduction; there had been no attasgt to zehabilitate the well tO ma+ri mi ye pr maintain itS prOdllCtlvity; PRI tOOk appZOpri.ate ,t~,~,.nc tp m;n;m;3e gnxurbrater infla~3 during drilling of the borelwle and installation of the shaft; nmitoring of the well for over a period of a year dial not ixrlicate a trend of a falli~ water table; and "[tJhe owner of the well has not made a demonstratico of injury, or that the capacity of the saturated thiclmess of the fornaticm is now unable to meet historic •" BY letter dated June 28, 1995, the Dem~es Field Office (DFC)), Oft, determined, on the basis of D!~G's June 6, 1995, letter and report, that LNG had taken appropriate action is to Violation 2 of TatATo. 93-020- 370-005. By letter of the s~ date, DFU informed the Tatums that it found LT'G's actions^~te with regard to Violation 2 and~that O~R+I wand not be ca~ducting a Federal inspection or taking any enforearent acticm. In a letter dated August 12, 1995, the Tatlais requested informal review of DFU's June 28, 1995, decisics~, p+usvant to 30 C.F.R. §842.15. gy ~.~-;a;,,n dated August 24, 1995, the Regional Director, Western Regional ~oxdinating Center, OSM; issued a decision affinron3 the DBO's decision. 'Itbe Tatums filed.a.timely appeal of the Regional Director's decision. 'B1e Boaffi dodaete3 that: appeal•as D3LA 96=90. . ._ ,: .~: .. .... r. ~n; ';^a . .. .. 7Gt1~ .:.,i.:: .,. .. ,.. , r... ,.. 151 D3IA 297