Laserfiche WebLink
<br />iii IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />999 <br />~= <br />~ ^ <br />ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87102 R~C~I <br />United States Department of the Interior <br />OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING <br />RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT <br />SUITE 910 <br />March 5, 1991 <br />CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT NU.: P 965 799 037 <br />MAR 0 7 ~gg~ <br />AAined Land <br />Reclamation Division <br />Permit: C-81-024 <br />Mine Nacre: CCt~' #1 <br />Mr. Dan Mathews <br />Ntined Lanj Reclamation Division <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />X15 Centennial Euildinq <br />1313 Shernian Street <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Dear Mr. Mathews: <br />The enclosed Office of Surface Mining Reclamation arul Ehforcement (OSM) <br />inspection report identifies a violation that is considered to have <br />existed at the time of the last State complete inspection (LSCI) but had <br />not been cited. <br />Gate of Federal Inspection: 2/19/91 ; Date of LSCI: 1/29/91 <br />The determination that the State did not cite the violation is based on <br />cne or more of the following reasons: <br />The con,lition was identified in a State inspection report but no <br />State enforcement action was taken, <br />~>ecign criteria or required certification has not been met for a <br />structure in existence as of the last State complete inspection <br />(sediment pond, excess spoil fill, etc.). <br />~Jecessary controls that were required at the time of the last <br />State complete inspection have not been established (diversion <br />ditches, sediment ponds, top soil protection, signs and markers, <br />etc.). <br />X Site conditions indicate that the violation noted had been in <br />existence at the time of, or prior to, the last State complete <br />inspection. <br />Other (give explanation). <br />Although the violation was cited by the State, GSM believes that the <br />violation was evident during the last State complete inspection. <br />