Laserfiche WebLink
With regard to actually conducting monitoring at the Tatum <br />property, DMG admits that such monitoring was not conducted at <br />the Tatum property because of State Rule 2.05.6(6)(c)(i)(D). <br />This rule provides that monitoring need not commence until the <br />mine is one month away from undermining the structures requiring <br />monitoring. Since development of the First North Main of the <br />Golden Eagle mine stopped before it was one month away from <br />undermining the Tatum house, monitoring at the Tatum house was <br />not required and did not occur. DMG showed that Basin eventually <br />did fulfill its obligation to monitor for subsidence to verify <br />its conclusion that no material damage would occur by monitoring <br />over the Third North Main portion of the Golden Eagle Mine. The <br />results of the monitoring over the Third North Main showed that <br />no significant subsidence had occurred. <br />Concerning the alleged violation of State Rule 4.20, DMG <br />showed that Basin's violation of State Rule 4.20.2 had been <br />corrected, and the corresponding State NOV terminated, by the <br />time the Tatum's filed their citizen's complaint. With regard to <br />the remaining portions of State Rule 4.20, since no subsidence <br />had been observed, DMG asserted that Basin had not caused any <br />subsidence related damage to the Tatum property and could not <br />have violated the remaining portions of State Rule 4.20. <br />b. Violation 3 of 3 <br />32 <br />