Laserfiche WebLink
pipe, but there was no conclusive indication regazding ground movement associated with alleged <br />subsidence. It is_Ms. Tatum's position that the water pipe damage occurred due to subsidence <br />impacts associated with the adjacent Basin Resources mine. <br />During the inspection, you and Ms. Tatum also viewed and documented damage to the Tatum <br />residence and gazage. It is Ms. Tatum's position that new damage has occurred in addition to <br />damages previously addressed in the above referenced District court and 1BLA proceedings, and <br />that the new damage to the Tatum residence and gazage is a result of ongoing subsidence impacts <br />from the adjacent BRI mine. The damage includes cracking in the walls and floor. <br />As a result of youi-=inspection, tiie Dlvfc; issued NOV No. CV-1000=00y to l~kl. '1 he NOVCites <br />Colorado regulation 4.01.1(a) and 4.20.1. BRI is required to "promptly repair, refiabilitat6, <br />restore, or replace damaged occupied residential dwellings and related structures or <br />noncommercial buildings: or compensate the owner of the damaged occupied residential <br />dwelling and~related.structure or noncommercial building in the full amount of the diminution in <br />value resulting from the subsidence." The time for abatement is until December 31, 2000. <br />The NOV-:was•issued because it appeared that subsidence impacts, originating at the Golden <br />Eagle Mine operated by BRI, aze adversely impacting the Tatum residence, gazage, water line <br />and pasture: _The permit document for this mine (Permit No. C-81-013) specifies that no such <br />damage would°occiir. The above referenced District Court. and 1BLA decisions found that BRI's _ . <br />Golden Eagle Mine did previously cause subsidence damage to thel'atum residence. The -. <br />damages observedzduring DMG's October 25,.2000, inspection aze consistent with the damages <br />previously attributed to subsidence impacts from the mine, as documented in these decisions <br />Because the damages observed during the October 25,-2000,-inspection are wnsistent-with the- <br />previously:doeumented subsidence damages,-and based upon the statements.of-Ms. Tatum that-- - - <br />--- --the damagesasbseiued during the inspection occurredsince.-the.damages.previously,addressed.by- - _ . <br />theDistrict court and.the IBLA, the DMG issued the:NOY._- -__-___ -- <br />In light of the'ab'ove`and the materials c..ontained in-yourresponse, the DFD finds pursuant to 30 <br />CFR 842.11 ~ your response is not arbitraty,sapi~Cious, or an abuse of discretion under the <br />_ Colorado regulatory.program.and is consider `ppropriate_action" to cause the violation to be :-, _ ., <br />corrected. --- _ ~-. -- <br />We appreciate the diligence and effort undertaken by DMG in responding to the TDN. __ <br />Sincerely, <br />JI~VbM1t.!/I ~ <br />James Fulton <br />ChieF, Denver Field Division <br />cc: Henry Austin, DFD <br />