Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> v <br /> tphENT of IN <br /> TAM <br /> QP� ��f TtiF <br /> United States Department of the Interior <br /> _m <br /> o OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING L <br /> RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT ■ <br /> ,1644 SUITE 310 <br /> 625 SILVER AVENUE, S.W. In Reply Refer To: <br /> ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87102 <br /> July 6, 1990 <br /> JUL 9 inj <br /> Mr. Michael B. Long, Coal Program Supervisor +C1 AlkIA`1-W),il a1ratr <br /> Mined Land Reclamation Division <br /> Department of Natural Resources <br /> 215 Centennial Building <br /> 1313 Sherman Street <br /> Denver, CO 80203 <br /> Re: Review of MLRD Response for Ten-Day Notice (TDN) No. 89-02-244-5, <br /> Violation 1 of 9, Coal Basin Mines <br /> Dear Mr. Long: <br /> This letter responds to the Mined Land Reclamation Division's (MLRD) <br /> response dated May 21, 1990, regarding the above-mentioned violation. <br /> It was noted that the file remained open as to the Albuquerque Field <br /> Office's (AFO) finding regarding MLRD's secondary response to the <br /> violation. Initially, MLRD's response (dated November 27, 1989) <br /> regarding the violation, failure to protect topsoil on the reclaimed <br /> slopes of the Old Refuse Pile, was found by AFO (December 19, 1989) as <br /> being arbitrary and capricious. Your office appealed that finding under <br /> the right for an informal review, as noted in 30 CFR 842.11(b) (1) (iii) (A) . <br /> While the decision rendered from OSM for the appeal (dated January 24, <br /> 1990) was that the MLRD response constituted good cause for there not <br /> being a violation, OSM required MLRD to re-inspect the area within 30 <br /> days to affirm whether or not a violation of the Colorado program <br /> existed. In addition, the OSM response made provision for additional <br /> time to re-inspect should weather prevent an on-the-ground finding. A <br /> request for the additional time was made by your office on February 26, <br /> 1990. A finding was made by AFO (March 6, 1990) that a request for <br /> additional time was reasonable due to the ground and weather conditions <br /> at the mine. The re-inspection requirement was extended to May 15, 1990. <br /> The re-inspection was delayed further and was approved by AFO via <br /> telephone to extend a couple of days beyond that date. Your <br /> correspondence regarding the re-inspection was received by AFO on May <br /> 25, 1990. Evidence was found that topsoiling, seeding, and mulching was <br /> performed on the area cited in accordance with the reclamation plan. <br />