Laserfiche WebLink
arbitrary and capricious and did, indeed, constitute good cause <br />pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 842.11 (b)(1)(ii)(B)(4)(i). <br />IV. ARGUMENT <br />In essence, there is only one determinative issue in this <br />case: Did Director Seibel commit error when he affirmed the <br />decision of the OSM Albuquerque Field Office that Colorado had <br />responded appropriately to OSM Ten-Day-Notice (TDN) number 93- <br />020-370-000, violations 1 and 3 of 3? As will be explained <br />below; the answer is "no." <br />1. The Tatums' Citizen's Complaint <br />In their citizen's complaint, filed on November 30, 1993, <br />the Tatums alleged that Basin had violated several portions of <br />the Colorado coal mining program related to subsidence: <br />3. It would appear that [State coal mining] Rule <br />2.05.6(6) "Subsidence Survey, Subsidence Monitoring and <br />Subsidence Control Plan" has been substantially <br />violated in that no bench marks were established and no <br />provision was made so that subsidence of our house and <br />property to be mined under could be monitored. This is <br />a direct violation of what Wyoming Fuel promised to do <br />upon conducting operations under our property. <br />4. Rule 4.20 "Subsidence Control" providing for <br />protection of the surface owners property and water <br />well appears to have been deliberately ignored. No <br />monitoring of the surface structures and related <br />property a5 called for by the statute was done. <br />5. No subsidence survey or worst possible consequences <br />of subsidence has been done in compliance with the <br />statutes. <br />20 <br />