|
51 Interior Dec. 286
<br />Cite as: 151 Interior Dec. 286, *291, 2000 WL 1740340, **4 (D.O.2.))
<br />Page 5
<br />field Office (AFO), OSM, informed DMG that *291 it considered its response to
<br />violations 1 and 3 to be "appropriate," but the response to Violation 2 to be
<br />inappropriate. AFO explained, regarding Violation 2, that the facts alleged by
<br />he Tatums, if true, would constitute a violation of the State program and that
<br />~he DMG was obligated to conduct a more thorough investigation. On the same
<br />date, OSM also informed the Tatums of the results of its review of DMG's
<br />esponse.
<br />By letter dated February 14, 1994, DMG sought informal review of AFO's
<br />etermination regarding Violation 2, in accordance with the procedures set forth
<br />n 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(1)(iii), asserting that the inappropriate finding
<br />~hould be reversed because its investigation into the technical aspects of the
<br />lleged violation was ongoing. On May 26, 1994, the Deputy Director, OSM,
<br />responded to DMG's request for informal review by granting it an additional 60
<br />~ays in which to complete its investigation.
<br />By letter dated July 18, 1994, DMG informed AFO that it had completed its
<br />investigation and that, based on a letter from Jim Tatum stating that it
<br />~ppeared that an airshaft constructed by BRI had not harmed the water well, it
<br />elieved the issue had been resolved. It requested that OSM find its response to
<br />Violation 2 to be appropriate. AFO forwarded this information to the Deputy
<br />erector, OSM, by memorandum dated July 29, 1994, stating "AFO does not believe
<br />hat DMG's investigation answers the question whether or not the mine shaft has
<br />impacted the water well."
<br />**5 By letter dated December 2, 1994, the Tatums requested informal review,
<br />ursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 842.15(a), of that part of the AFO's February 1994
<br />ecision relating to Violations 1 and 3. The Deputy Director, OSM, acknowledged
<br />this request in a January 18, 1995, "interim response," wherein he also stated
<br />hat his response would serve as "an update regarding our pending decision to
<br />Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology's (DMG) request for informal review of
<br />Part [Violation] 2 of the same TDN." He informed the Tatums that "the Colorado
<br />bMG has made a firm commitment to promptly take the lead in conducting a
<br />_horough technical investigation to determine whether Basin Resource's
<br />underground mining operations have impacted the water level in your well and
<br />lave caused subsidence-related damage to your property." He stated that upon
<br />4ompletion of DMG's technical investigation and review of subsequent actions
<br />taken by DMG, OSM would notify them of its decision on the violations.
<br />On February 1, 1995, DMG and OSM officials, the Tatums, their mining engineer
<br />consultant, and representatives of BRI all visited the Tatums' house to conduct
<br />an investigation of the subsidence allegation. In his February 8, 1995, report
<br />~f that investigation, DMG official, Jim Pendleton, an engineering geologist,
<br />Mated at page 4 that there was "sufficient evidence to conclude that mine
<br />subsidence is not the cause of the Tatum residence's observed structural
<br />symptoms." In part, he based *292 that conclusion on his observations of the
<br />foundation of the house. He stated at page 3 of his report:
<br />I entered the crawl space beneath the main floor from the partial basement.
<br />* * * I examined the crawl space foundation walls by flashlight * * *. The
<br />foundation consists of field rock and mortar walls founded in excavated
<br />drench[e]s. Two to three courses of unfinished adobe blocks are placed on top of
<br />the field stone wall as a leveling course. Finally, wooden blocks support the
<br />Copt. ® West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
<br />
|