Laserfiche WebLink
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiii <br />999 <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanmem n( Natural Resources <br />I31 ]Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colomrln BO'03 <br />Phunc: i 3031 86fi-3567 <br />FA% (7!13183?-81116 <br />Memorandum <br />TO: Mike Long <br />Steve Brown <br />Jim Pendleton <br />Dan Hernandez <br />FROM: Susan McCannon <br />RE: Basin Resources v. Tatum <br />DATE: Mazch 19, 1998 <br />~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />dames 5 Lnchhrad <br />Eaecwive Dueaor <br />Michael B. long <br />Dwision Direuor <br />I have reviewed the letter dated February 23, 1998 which was sent to both you, Mike, and Kathy <br />Karpan of the OSM from Anne Tatum. Mrs. Tatum indicates that, amongst other things, that our <br />investigation did not uncover all pertinent information related to subsidence impacts to the <br />Tatum home. I believe that we need to pursue this idea and determine either that she is correct or <br />that our decision was based on all pertinent information available. <br />In her letter Mrs. Tatum indicates that testimony in the trial revealed that Basin Resources did <br />not provide pertinent survey materials and withheld other evidence from the Division during its <br />investigation of the Tatum citizen's complaint concerning subsidence impacts to the Tatum <br />home. The attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgement do not directly <br />indicate that evidence was withheld from DMG by Basin, but the Findings of Fact section <br />indicates that mining occurred within 300 feet of the home, subsidence was evident to the <br />railroad tracks and resulted in a sink hole, and that the home "...was considerably damaged by the <br />subsidence, which was caused by the mining operation." (See page 4). These findings are <br />significantly different from ours with regard to the citizen complaint. The Conclusions of Law <br />go on to state that "... ground subsidence by the underground coal mining operation caused <br />structural movement and damage to plaintiffs' residence." (See page 5). Again, this is a <br />significantly different conclusion from the one we reached. <br />My primary concern is ifadditional, pertinent information is available, we should examine it in <br />order to determine if an adjustment of our earlier findings with regard to the citizen's complaint <br />is warranted. If pertinent information was indeed withheld, a secondary concern becomes what <br />actions are appropriate against Basin Resources for withholding pertinent information. If no <br />additional pertinent information was withheld, what information was used by the court as the <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />