Laserfiche WebLink
' ~ 02/06/2008 18:26 <br />FtB, 6, 2008 4:18PM <br />3032315360 <br />USDI IBIA <br />REG SOLICITOR DENVER <br />PAGE 02/09 <br />IVV, 0410 r,. ii u <br />~7nited States Department of the Interior <br />OFFICE OF I~.LARINGS AND ApPBAI.S <br />Interior B card of Land Appeal <br />801 N. Quincy St. Suite 300 <br />~1r1inF;ton, VA 22203 <br />703 235 3750 <br />Februaxy 6, 2008 <br />I~I.A 2008-24 <br />JIM AND ,p~NN TATUM <br />I <br />703 235 8349 (fax) <br />) permit Nn. C-81-013 <br />) <br />Surface Mining; <br />I <br />Motion fox Expedited Consid2,tation <br />Granted; <br />Decision Affirmed as M,odifred; <br />Motion for' Sra~ Denied a>9 Moot <br />ORDER <br />,hm.and Ann Tatum bav+e appealed from an October 7.2, 2007, decision of the <br />Regional Director, Western Regional Cooxdinating Cent, Office of Surface Mining <br />Reclamation sand Er-fozcemeat (OSM), on informal review OF ~ S hat ~e responBC~ <br />decision of OSN!'s Detx;+er, Coloxado, Field Division {OFD), ftnding <br />of the state regulatory a»thority, Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and <br />5afetq [ARMS), to Ten DayNotice (TON) X07.-X40-1I6-002 was not arb'i~ rp~t <br />caprictious, or an abuse of discretion under the approved State grogram, <br />DRMS had good cause fox taking no ftiuther act-on on ~ two~violatfons alleged in <br />the TON. ~ Those violations were Failure to ha'v'e a valid DBMS wrluetl approval for a <br />permit Cvolatlon 1) and failure to provide a valid public liabillt~insurazun for <br />cesdlfirate. (Violation 2)1 The Tatums filed a motion for stay <br />expedited consideration together ~~ ~~' aPPeal~ <br />Hasecl un pz'eliminaz3' ~~^' of the case recr~rd ar-d pleadings, we Conclude <br />rliat the Tatums have failed to show any error in the Regional Director's decision <br />finding that DBMS showed good case for taldn zatiofi, ~ ethe permi g Ac ordit>tg1y, <br />Violation 1. The case record shows valid aurhorl <br />we gzaat the mnrion for expedited consideration, affirm the Regional Director's <br />dec9.sion as It relates to Violation 1, and deny the motion to stay as moot. <br />1 pn appeal, t]ae Tatwnns challenge the Regional Directors decision only aS it relates <br />to DBMS' zesponse to violation 1. Therefore, his ruling regarding Violation 2 is final <br />agency action and is not before us on appeal. This order will not include any <br />discussion of Violation 2 and DBMS' response thereto. <br />