Laserfiche WebLink
<br />violations land 3. Citing the lengthy and thorough <br />investigation of the matter by both OSM and DMG experts, Director <br />Seibel stated: <br />After full consideration of the factors in this matter, <br />I find that the AFO Director properly determined that <br />DMG's response to alleged violation 1 of 3 relating to <br />damage to your residence due to subsidence contained in <br />the ten-day notice constituted appropriate action. <br />Further review of the record for Violation 3 of 3 <br />discloses that DMG forwarded copies of the operator's <br />maps and geologic cross sections along with narrative <br />from the permit as documentation that the operators <br />plan existed. The AFO in its February 4, 1994 letter <br />found this documentation to fulfill the intent of the <br />Colorado program. I concur with AFO's decision in <br />finding that DMG's response to alleged violation 3 of 3 <br />constituted appropriate action. <br />See AR I-5. <br />27: On October 12, 1995, the Tatums filed with the IBLA a <br />Notice of Appeal of Director Seibel's September 18, 1995, <br />decision. The Notice of Appeal appeared to include the Tatums' <br />Statement of Reasons. See AR I-2. <br />III. APPLICABLE LAW <br />The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 <br />U.S.C. ~ 1201 et sec. (SMCRA) established a cooperative State- <br />Federal scheme for the nationwide regulation of surface coal <br />mining operations. Under SMCRA § 503, 30 U.S.C. ~ 1253, a state <br />can be granted primary responsibility, known as State "primacy," <br />for the regulation of surface coal mining in that state. This <br />primacy is tempered by a Federal oversight responsibility, <br />including the responsibility of OSM to enforce provisions of a <br />15 <br />