Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Thomas E. Ehmett <br />December 2, 1994 <br />Page 2 <br />Kerr also believes that the circumstances of this case meet the criteria for an <br />extension in subsections 843.12(f)(1) and (4). Regarding subsection (f)(1), we anticipate <br />that a negotiated resolution would require Kerr to submit and receive approval for a <br />permit revision from the DMG, with OSM's concurrence. Kerr cannot prepare and <br />submit the specific revision until the negotiations are completed successfully. Additional <br />time will be required for review by the DMG and OSM before approval. Kerr does not <br />know how long this process will take, but Kerr commits to diligently prepare, submit and <br />pursue approval of the revision once a mutually agreeable resolution is reached in the <br />negotiations. <br />Even if a permit revision is unnecessary to implement a negotiated resolution, the <br />circumstances still justify a 90-day extension under subsection 843.12(f)(4). Winter has <br />set in at the Mine. The frozen ground precludes final earthmoving work until spring. If <br />Kerr attempted to begin moving dirt before spring, we would disrupt the drainage control <br />and ground stabilization measures we installed in Pit 1 earlier this year. This would cause <br />additional environmental damage during the spring thaw and runoff which could be <br />avoided if the work is deferred until ground conditions are appropriate. <br />Because of these climatic factors, and the uncertain timing of any required permit <br />revision approval, I want to advise you that Kerr may need to request an additional 90- <br />day extension beyond March 12, 1995, under section 843.12(j). We will address that later <br />if it becomes necessary. <br />I understand that section 843.12(h) requires Mr. Uram's concurrence in this <br />request. I know from our meeting at the Mine in early October, and from our subsequent <br />discussions with him, that he also is committed to the negotiation process and to take <br />steps within his authority to facilitate a negotiated resolution. Kerr believes, therefore, <br />that he would consider this extension request favorably. <br />Finally, Ken:'s attorneys advise me that this extension request must be made <br />without prejudice to Kerr's positions in the pending litigation. I can reaffirm Ken's <br />iiJa;.i. isilrv~ <br />