Laserfiche WebLink
... -.. _.___.. ..... ... .. •. .. ,.n rte.. r, n... .fy UYJ <br />Mrs. Arnt Tatum Z <br />prittuuy responsibility for the regulation of coal mining in Colorado. OSM hat oversight <br />reaponaibility for etrsurir-g that DMG is administering its program properly, including the <br />retiponsbiGty to enforce provisions of the Colorado program when the State fa~7s to do so. When <br />OSM recdva infoanation, as, for example, by means of a dtiua complaint, of a possible <br />violation of this State program, SMCRA requires OSM to inform Colorado of this fact. OSM <br />then affirds the State 10 days either to take "appropriate action" to carve the possble violation to <br />be retreated or to show "goad cause" for failing to take anch action. <br />(2) In response W your November 1993 citizen complaint, Colorado DMG maintained that no <br />violation had occurred. It baxd this conclusion on an investigation by its qual6ed expert. OSM <br />accepted the State's responx and provided you with its decision By letter dated December 2, <br />1994, you requested an informal review of OSM's decision that DMG's response wan <br />appropriate $y letter dazed January 18, 1995, OSM's Deputy Director infomed yet he was <br />requesting DMG to conduct en additional investigation to determine whether or not the Golden <br />Eagle mine had caused subsidenoo-related damage W your hoax. The Deputy Director indicated <br />thaz OSM would provide teckt:dcal essi~tance to DMG during rho investigation and shat, once the <br />irnreatigatian was complete, OSM would issue a final decision on your December 2 request for <br />ittSorrtm] review. <br />Ae we have thoroughly related to you in lettus and in documents responding w your F03A <br />request, from January 1995 through September 1995, OSM and DMG wnducud an extentive <br />investigation into the possibility that subsidence had damaged your Colorado residence. All of the <br />OSM and DMG expav agreed, is separate written reports, that attbsideace wan not in fact <br />causing wch dattterge. Citittg the State's detar~ed and cogently reasoned response, as well as <br />reports of his own experts to the ell'ect that subsidence wan not causing damage to your <br />residence, Regional Director Serbd irrforaxd you by letter dated September 18, 1995, that your <br />house wen not situated such that subsidence from miniog at the Golden Begle mine could have <br />cause the alleged damage to yew house. Age'ut, we stead by this eonclusioa end await the <br />daasion on your appesl to the IHLA <br />(3) Of wtua~derable emphasis in your December 18 letter and your July 20, 1996, FOIA roquast, <br />a9 well as in totdettmce calla, is 051•!'a use of the Surface Deformation Prediction System <br />(SOPS) during investigations of citizens' eomplainu. You seek doaunents relarirlB to the SOPS. <br />You want to know which version of the SOPS OSM bas been using. <br />Most recerrtiy in our cotters of August 24 and November 27, 1998, we have pointed out to you <br />that DMG's and OSM's conclusions that the underground extraction doaest to your residence did <br />not cause subsidence to the ]and surface and these conclusions ovate based primarily on the feet <br />that this extraction was a limited non-retreat, room-and-pillar type with areal-removal ratio of <br />otrly 34 percent. To quote from our August 241etter: "[tjhe fact is that underground extraction <br />closest to your home did not cause any subsidence to the land surface since it was a <br />