Laserfiche WebLink
Q [John Retrum, counsel for OSM]: Isn't it true <br />that you [Kerr] could use any disturbed material-- <br />disturbed postlaw material for your reclamation <br />and backfilling and grading purposes at the Marr <br />Strip Mine? <br />A Well, if it's an approved procedure under our <br />permit, I believe that's true. <br />Tr., 487. Nothing in Mr. Munson's statement supports or even <br />implies that Kerr cannot abate the Federal NOV without DMG's <br />prior approval of a permit revision. <br />In any event, even if DMG's approval was necessary for <br />abatement and not obtainable within the abatement period, Kerr <br />could nevertheless apply to OSM for an extension of the abatement <br />period. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 <br />(SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1328, as implemented at 30 C.F.R. <br />§ 843.12(f)(1), allows for such an extension "[w]here the permit- <br />tee of an ongoing permitted operation has timely applied for and <br />diligently pursued a permit renewal or other necessary approval <br />of designs or plans but such permit or approval has not been or <br />will not be issued within 90 days after a valid permit expires or <br />is required, for reasons not within the control of the <br />permittee." <br />4. OSM made no evaluation of the environmental impact <br />of this drainage change and could offer no opinion <br />that it would be adverse. Tr.-I 143-45. However, <br />the shift in drainage of this small magnitude <br />relative to the East Drainage Area of about 7,400 <br />acres and to the Hush Draw Drainage of about 2,700 <br />acres is less than the seasonal variation in <br />precipitation. Exh. A-30, Tr.-II 306-09. It <br />causes no adverse effect on water users or <br />wildlife. Tr.-II 382-83, 389-90. <br />7 <br />