Laserfiche WebLink
<br />6. The backtilling and grading work commenced in July 1993 and was <br />completed in January 1994. Kerr expended just under $3 million and moved more than ~ million <br />cubic yards of spoil to complete this effort. <br />7. The final surface configuration created by Kerr's backfilling and grading <br />conformed to the final surface contour map and other AOC requirements of the Permit, with <br />some minor exceptions identified by the DMG in the subsequent bond release inspection which <br />aze being addressed by Kerr. <br />8. Kerr filed a Phase [bond release request with the DMG on or about <br />April 18. 1994, gave notice to all other required parties including OSM, and published notice in <br />the appropriate newspapers. The bond release request was deemed complete by the DIvIG on or <br />about April 21, 1994. <br />9. A bond release inspection was conducted on May 12, 1994. Participating <br />were representatives of Kerr, DMG, OSM, the Bureau of Land Management and the Colorado <br />State Boazd of Land Commissioners. The OSM representatives were Stephen Rathbun and Russ <br />Porter of the Albuquerque Field Office. <br />10. During the inspection, the BLM and State Land Boazd representatives <br />expressed their satisfaction with the final surface configuration of Pit l from their perspective as <br />managers of the lands. <br />f 1. After the site inspection, the OSM representatives asserted that the final <br />surface configuration of Pit 1 in the Permit and as achieved on the land did not meet the <br />approximate original contour ("AOC") requirements of Rule 4.14.1(2)(a) of Colorado's State <br />program. They did not assert that the surface configuration failed to conform to the AOC <br />provisions of the Permit, as approved by the DMG. <br />12. Mr. Rathbun advised the DMG representatives that he would issue a <br />federal notice of violation to Kerr for failure to meet the AOC requirements with respect to the <br />federal lands in Pit 1 by the end of that day, May l2, if the DMG failed to do so. After further <br />discussions, Mr. Rathbun orally stated that he would defer federal enforcement action until the <br />close of business on May 18, 1994, by which time he required the DMG to respond in writing <br />regazding its intentions. <br />l3. On May l8, 1994, the DMG faxed and mailed a letter to Mr. Rathbun, <br />stating that they believed the DMG had acted appropriately in their permitting decision and <br />would not take additional action at that time. <br />NIO-l. N!N! <br />3 <br />