ENFORCE31108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ii< <iiiiiiiniu iii 999 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Depanmenl of Nawral Resources 1311 Sherman SL, Room 215 Denver, CO 8020) Phone. U011866J 567 FAX: 0031 83?8106 February 14, 1994 Mr. Robert H. Hagen Office of Surface Mining 505 Marquette Avenue NW Suite 1200 Albuquerque, NM 87102 RE: TDN X-93-020-370-005-TV3, Basin Resouroes, Inc., The Golden Eagle Mine, Permit No. C-81-013 Dear Mr. Hagen: oe cow v~ 4 b ~g o /e ]6 Ruy Romer Governor Michael B long Drvuwn Dneao~ On February 8, 1994, the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (the Division) received the Albuquerque Field Office's (AFO) February 4, 1994 determination of our December 1993 and January 1994 responses to the above-referenced Ten-Day Notice ('I'DN). In its response, the AFO determined that the Division's response to Part 2 of the three-part TDN was inappropriate. As provided for the 30 CFR 842.11(b)(1)(iii), the Division requests an informal review of the AFO determination by the Deputy Director, Operations and Technical Services. The basis for our appeal is provided herein. In its evaluation of the Division response to the TDN, the AFO apparently mis-interpreted the intentions and actions of the Division in relation to the citizen complaint and the continuing investigation into identical allegations made in 1992. The Division received an initial complaint in December of 1992 alleging that the water well had been dewatercd by the air shaft. At that time, the Division initiated an investigation into the complaint. The investigation revealed two significant points. First, the well is documented as being non-functional when inventoried prior to development of the air shaft. Second, there is apparently no information availab]e regarding the construction and completion of the well. Such information is critical when evaluating the technical problem of whether the air shah dewatered the well. This is true in that it must be established that there is hydraulic communication between some portion of the airshah and the well production zone. If it is established that there is communication, then it could be assumed that the shaft was responsible for the dewatering, and thus the operator would be in violation of Colorado Rule 4.04 (6). As discussed in our response, the Division has made every reasonable effort to obtain the construction data. The Division contacted the Colorado Office of the State Engineer who records such information upon registration of a well, which is required by law. As the well has not been registered, the information is not available from that office. We contacted Mr. Tatum on at least two separate occasions in attempts to collect the information. Apparently Mr. Tatum does not posses the information. Contrary to the AFO interpretation of our response, Mr. Tatum fias never been asked to conduct an independent investigation. We have merely requested information which