My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE35557
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE35557
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:45:08 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:41:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
1/5/2001
Doc Name
BASIN RESOURCES INC NOV CV-2000-009 EXHIBITS FOR ASSESSMENT CONFERENCE
Violation No.
CV2000009
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.
/
111
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
~51 Interior Dec. 286 <br />((Cite ae: 151 Interior Dec. 286, *296, 2000 WL 1740340, **8 (D.O.I.)) <br />Page 9 <br />who had visited the Tatums' home during the May 11, 1995, inspection. He <br />Foncluded that the damage to the Tatums' home was not caused by BRI's <br />underground mining of the 1st North Main. He stated that the actual extraction <br />atio for the 1st North Main was 34 percent and that no subsidence would occur <br />~ecause of an adequate safety factor for the pillars. He explained that Gerity <br />hhad arbitrarily used an extraction ratio of 90 percent in the computer model to <br />redict subsidence near the Tatums' house and that, as a result, his results <br />ere erroneous. <br />' **9 On August 23, 1995, in separate letters, DMG informed OSM and the Tatums <br />that it had completed its investigation of damage to the Tatums' house and had <br />~oncluded that the house was not within an area in which mine subsidence was <br />occurring and that, therefore, the house was not subject. to mine subsidence <br />impacts. DMG requested that OSM issue a decision either upholding its response <br />s appropriate or overturning it. <br />On September 18, 1995, the Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating <br />Center, OSM, issued a decision affirming AFO's February 4, 1994, decision that <br />~MG had responded appropriately to Violations 1 and 3 of TDN No. 93-020-370- <br />?O5. Therein, he stated: <br />After full consideration of the factors in this matter, I find that the AFO <br />~irector properly determined that DMG's response to alleged violation 1 of 3 <br />elating to damage to your residence due to subsidence contained in the ten- day <br />notice constituted appropriate action. Further review of the record for <br />Violation 3 of 3 discloses that DMG forwarded copies of the operator's maps and <br />~eologic cross sections along with narrative from the permit as documentation <br />what the operator[']s plan existed. The AFO in its February 4, 1994, letter <br />found *297 this documentation to fulfill the intent of the Colorado program. I <br />concur with AFO's decision in finding that DMG's response to alleged violation 3 <br />~f 3 constituted appropriate action. <br />The Tatums filed a timely notice of appeal of the Regional Director's <br />ecision. The Board docketed that appeal as IBLA 96-91. <br />During this same time period, DMG was further investigating the alleged damage <br />to the Tatums' water well, and by letter dated June 6, 1995, DMG notified OSM <br />chat, based on its technical investigation, it had determined that it was <br />(likely that the water level in the well was influenced by adjacent underground <br />workings and exhaust shaft, but that the water well is neither permitted nor is <br />he water right adjudicated with the State Engineer's Office, and the operator <br />~ook measures to minimize hydrologic impacts in the area~of the well." It <br />concluded that BRI was not in violation of its permit, the Colorado Surface Coal <br />fining Reclamation Act or State regulations, and it attached a copy of its <br />investigative report. <br />In the report, DMG found at page 11 that, although the original complaint had <br />alleged that mining operations had dried up the well, the well contained <br />1pproximately 39 feet of water above the former well pump intake level; the well <br />.ad been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair that inhibited water <br />production; there had been no attempt to rehabilitate the well to maximize or <br />Maintain its productivity; BRI took appropriate measures to minimize groundwater <br />_~nflows during drilling of the borehole and installation of the shaft; <br />monitoring of the well for over a period of a year did not indicate a trend of a <br />Copr. m West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.