Laserfiche WebLink
SENT BY~Xerox TeleCOpier 7021 ~ 9- 6-94 ~ 3~23Pk.~ <br />Honorable Roy Romer <br />September 8, 1994 <br />Page 3 <br />3036323804y 303 632 6106# 4 <br />®~~~~ <br />The DMG's report for the April. 1993 inspection prepared by Randy ]'rice <br />contained several permitting concema raised by OSM coaceming drainage control. It <br />does not mention AOC, indicating that AOC was not identified by OSM e8 a concern at <br />the closeout meeting. Furthermore, Mr. Austin's report of that inspection elates: <br />Slip. 20 commits the pemuttee [Kerr] to working with DMG <br />toward eatabl'a1,~ the current reclamation liability amount <br />AFO will request the OSM/Westem Services Center (WSC) <br />also conduct [sic] ea independent analysis of tomcat <br />reclamation liability. relative to the most recent aerial <br />photography volnmetrics data and the gad backfilling <br />and grading plan. (underscoring added) <br />In his deposition on July 8, 1994, Mr. Austin pointed to the second quoted sentence ea <br />OSM's notice tin Kea and the DMG in April, 1993. that the 1990 permit revision did not <br />meet the AOC standard. But, the aeatence refers to the "approved" plea (which was the <br />1990 revised plan at that time), and only seeks a study of Kerr.'s reclamation liability <br />relative to that plan and current volumetrics data. The plain meaning of this sentence is <br />that OSM would analyze whether Kew's reclamation bond was aufficieat to secure Ken's <br />obligation to complete bacld'>iliag and grading in accordance with tho 1990 approved . <br />P~• <br />~,~.~. <br />