Laserfiche WebLink
IBLA 96-90,96-91 <br />this documentation to fulfill the intent of the Colorado program. I concur with AFO's decision in finding that <br />DMG's response to alleged violation 3 of 3 constituted appropriate action. <br />"Ilse Tatuns filed a timely notice of appeal of the Regional Director's decision. The Board docketed that appeal as <br />IBLA 96-91. <br />During this same time period, DMG was fiuther investigating the alleged damage to the Tatum' water well, and by <br />letter dated June 6, 1995, DMG notified OSM that, based on its technical investigation, it had determined that it was "likely <br />that the water level in the well was influenced by adjacent underground workings and exhaust shaft, but that the water well <br />is neither permitted nor is the water right adjudicated with the State Engineer's Office, and the operator took measures to <br />minimize hydrologic impacts in the area of the well." It concluded that BRI was not in violation of its permit, the Colorado <br />Surface Cord Mining Reclamatic,6 Act or State regulations, and it attached a copy of its investigative report. <br />In the report, DMG found at page I 1 that, although the original complaint had alleged that mining operations had dried <br />up the well, the well contained approximately 39 feet of water above the former well pump intake level; the well had been <br />allowed to fall into a state of disrepair that inhibited water production, thew had been no attempt to rehabilitate the well to <br />maximize or maintain its productivity; BRI took appropriate measures to minimize groundwater inflows dtuing drilling of <br />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 <br />falling water table; and "[t]he owner of the well has not made a demonstration of injury, or that the capacity of the sahurated <br />thickness of the Formation is now i enable to meet historic usage." <br />By letter dated Arne 28, 1995; the Denver Field Office (DFO), OSM, determined, on the basis of DMG's June 6, 1995, <br />letter and report, that DMG had taken appropriate action in response to Violation 2 of TDN No. 93-020370-005. By letter <br />of the same date, DFO infonned the Tatum that it found DMG's actions appropriate with regard to Violation 2 and that <br />OSM would not be conducting a Federal inspection or taking any enforcement action. <br />In a letter dated August 12, 1995, the Tatum requested informal review of DFO's June 28, 1995, decision, pursuant to <br />30 C.F.R. § 842.15. By decision dated August 24, 1995, the Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center, <br />OSM, issued a decision aYFnning the DFCYs decision <br />The Tatum filed a timely appeal ofthe Regional Direc.Kor's decision. The Board docketed that appeal as 1BLA 96-90. <br />151 IBLA 297