ENFORCE37475 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iii iiiiiiiiniuiii 999 DIVISIGN OF MIIJ[RtiL~ AND GEOLO ,Y D,-panmonl of Natural Reswrces I } I 1 Sherman Sr.. Room 215 Ua`nver, Colorado 80?03 Phone. 1 .031 Abb-356: FAXt llgh A32~A1 U6 Memorandum TO: Mike Long Steve Brown Jim Pendleton Dan Hernandez FROM: Susan McCannon RE: Basin Resources v. Tatum DATE: Mazch 19, 1998 Ur~l~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL, RESOURCES Roy Romer Governor dames S LochheaA E.vecmive Dvennr Pn¢hatl g. Long Div~sio~ Director [ have reviewed the letter dated February 23, 1998 which was sent to both you, Mike, and Kathy Kazpan of the OSM from Anne Tatum. Mrs. Tatum indicates that, amongst other things, that our investigation did not uncover all pertinent information related to subsidence impacts to the Tatum home. I believe that we need to pursue this idea and determine either that she is corrector that our decision was based on all pertinent information available. In her letter Mrs. Tatum indicates that testimony in the trial revealed that Basin Resources did not provide pertinent survey materials and withheld other evidence from the Division during its investigation of the Tatum citizen's complaint concerning subsidence impacts to the Tatum home. The attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgement do not directly indicate that evidence was withheld from DNIG by $asin, but the Findings of Fact section indicates that mining occurred within 300 feet of the home, subsidence was evident to the railroad tracks and resulted in a sink hole, and that the home "...was considerably damaged by the subsidence, which was caused by the mining operation." (See page 4). These findings are significantly different from ours with regazd to the citizen complaint. The Conclusions of Law go on to state that "... ground subsidence by the underground coal mining operation caused structural movement and damage to plaintiffs' residence." (See page 5). Again, this is a significantly different conclusion from the one we reached. Niy primary concern is if additional, pertinent information is available, we should examine it in order to determine if an adjustment of our earlier findines with regard to the citizen's complaint is warranted. If pertinent information was indeed withheld, a secondary concern becomes what actions are appropriate against Basin Resources for withholding pertinent information. If no additional pertinent information was withheld, what information was used by the court as the STATE OF COL01Z~D0