ENFORCE20916 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IBLA 96-90R, 96-91R surface structures and related property as called for by statute was done." In;that ocumplaint, the Tatuans also inwrporated by reference a letter to 0.4T'dated November 18, 1993, in which Jim Tatum asserted that no significant damage or cracking occurred in their house until after BRI coinnenced cork under their property. In that November 18, 1993, letter, he also expressed frustration in dealing with the State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining and Geology (LIB): Lim at first took the position that no mining had taken place in close proximity to the house. The first assertions of distance frcetu the house were grossly in error or untrue. LMG has ignored the Colorado laws regarding the safeguards to be used in m;n;ng under structures and nothing has beP~ done about the m; n;nq cca~g~any ignoring such laws. IMG now is trying to blame the structural failure of the house on ridiculous or nonexistent causes. In short II~iG has acted in a manner that strongly suggests that their role is to justify wrongful acts and the resulting damage by the m; n; nq cotnparLies . Cn December 7, 1993, in response to the citi2en's c~laint, CSM issued TIN No. 93-020-370-005 to L2~, listing three violations of Colorado State program standards. The TLN described the violations as a failure to properly conduct a subsidence survey, subsidence monitoring, and a subsidence control plan for the Tatums' property, in violation of sections 2.05.6(6) and 4.20 of 2 Colo. Code Regs. (1991) (Violation 1); failure to control adverse consequences to a water well on the property (Violation 2); and failure to provide a detailed operations plan of the proposed (or actual) umdeLground ~.orkings as it related to the Tatum property (Violation 3). Cki December 20, 1993, IMG responded to alleged Violations 1 and 3 asserting that BRS had not violated State star~~~. On February 4, 1994, following the receipt of further information fran I2~'1G, the Albuquerque Field Office (AEU) , C6M, informed III that it considered its response to Violations 1 and 3 to be "appropriate." By letter dated December 2, 1994, the Tatimis requested infornal review, pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 842.15(a), of that part of. the AEU's February 1999 decision relating to Violations 1 and 3. The Deputy Director, OSM, acknowledged this request in a January 18, 1995, "interim response," wherein he also stated that "the Colorado IMG has made a fire crRmitment to promgtly take the lead in wnducting a thorough technical investigation to determine whether Basin Resource's underground mining operations have in~aacted the water level in your well and have caused subsidence-related damage to your property." He stated that upon cou~letion of II~'s technical investigation and review of subsequent actions taken by L2~, CfiM c,~uld notify them of its decision on the violations. In its petition, C6M alleges that Violation 1 of the TLN in this case 2