Laserfiche WebLink
.5_ k} ~ ~` <br />Bruce Humphries <br />Page 3 <br />cally, he argues that for the statute to apply, the Division <br />would have to be the permit applicant. Such an interpretation <br />misconstrues the language of the statute. <br />Section 24-80.1-102(1) defines "action" to mean any state activi- <br />ty, or the approval, sanction, or assistance, or support of any <br />activity including new and continuing activities directly engaged <br />in by the agency or new and continuing activities involving a <br />state permit or license. This definition does not limit the ap- <br />plication of the reporting requirements to just direct "state" <br />action, but rather provides that the requirements also apply to <br />action which involves a state license or permit. The Board's <br />granting of the reclamation permit to the county activated the <br />SHPO mandates. The "initiating" state action to which the stat- <br />ute speaks is not that the state itself apply for a permit, but <br />that the state grant a permit. Accordingly, I believe the Divi- <br />sion was on solid ground in imposing SHPO clearance as a condi- <br />tion to the issuance of Moffat County•s permit. <br />This memorandum reflects the opinion of the authoring attorney <br />only and should not be considered an official opinion of the At- <br />torney General. <br />cc: sari Mount, DMG <br />Jerry Goad, FAAG <br />AG Alpha No. NR MN ICADX <br />AG Rile No. E9314185.107 <br />