My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE20916
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE20916
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:31:14 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:52:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
7/28/2000
Doc Name
SURFACE MINING CITIZENS COMPLAINT PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED ORDER
Violation No.
TD1993020370005TV3
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
IBLA 96-90R, 96-91R <br />We reject AI's position in its petition that damage to the Tatums' <br />house was not an issue in the TLN. <br />Under the regulations at 43 C.E.R. § 4.21(c), reconsideration of a <br />decision may be granted only in extraordinary circtumstances where, in the <br />judgement of the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeal or an <br />Appeals Board, sufficient reason appears therefor. We will examine GSM's <br />petition in light of this standard. <br />In the petition, OSM states its belief that the Board's decision <br />contains significant errors of law, the first of which it asserts relates <br />to the following language frtzn the decision: <br />We believe, however, that the present re~rd establishes by <br />a preponderance of the evidence that a violation aid exist. <br />Appellants have presented a decision issued by a Colorado State <br />court (James (Jim) Tatum and Ann Tatum v. Basin Resources, Inc., <br />No. 92 CV 127 (Dec. 1, 1997)] in a case involving then and BRI. <br />Although neither LIB nor C6hI were parties to that proceeding, the <br />Judge deternuned that subsidence caused by BRI's m;n;ng operation <br />did, in fact, damage appellants' residence. Such a finding <br />establishes a violation of the Colorado State program under 2 <br />Colo. Code Regs. 4.20, as cited in the TIN. <br />151 IBIA at 308. C6M alleges that the Board's statement implies that a <br />mere finding that subsidence-related damage has occurred is sufficient to <br />support a finding of violation of the State program. CSM contends that the <br />proper standard is not whether damage has occurred but whether the person <br />who has been subjected to subsidence-related damage has been compensated <br />for the damage. 2/ It states that because Judge Manzanares' determined the <br />amount of compensation due and Basin paid it, no violation exists. <br />2/ The applicable State regulation, 2 Colo. Code Regs. § 4.20.3(2) (1991), <br />specifically provides, in pertinent part, that: <br />Each person who conducts LTMiderground mining activities which <br />result in subsidence that causes material damage * * * shall, <br />with respect to each surface area affected by subsidence: <br />(a) Restore, rehabilitate, or remove and replace each <br />damaged structure * * * pratptly after damage is suffered, to the <br />~ndition it would be as if no subsidence had occurred * * *; <br />(b) Purchase the damaged structure * * * for its fair <br />market, presubsidence value * * *; or <br />(c) Each person who conducts underground mining activities <br />will compensate the owner of any surface structure in full amount <br />of the diminution in value resulting from subsidence * * *. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.