Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Schreiner <br />March 30, 1998 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />My interpretation of the 1977 plan(s) and the 1985 amendment(s) is that final <br />grading by Lien "... shall be done to a maximum of 2:1 sloping to the east which will <br />follow the original contour of the land which is an east sloping hogback formation". In <br />other words, we have the right as per the approved plan(s) and plan arrrendment(s) <br />to have a slope of 2:1. That slope is the maximum anticipated slope and complies <br />with Rule 6 at 6.4.5(2)(f)(i) CCR. Furthermore, in reading from Rule 6, it aippears that <br />all is required is to specify the maximum anticipated slope gradient or ttie expected <br />ranges thereof. There is no requirement for precision it appears. This, of course, <br />makes sense. <br />We believe our interpretation as provided to you with Sam Lien's :submittal of <br />January 14, 1998 complies with the expected slopes of 4:1 to 5:1. Our people <br />believe that in the field our proposal will provide for a majority of the Lost-mining <br />contours having reclaimed slopes of 4:1 or at least in that range and not more than a <br />slope of 2:1. But, to suggest that the plan requires slopes of 4:1 or greater is to <br />selectively refer only to a part of the language in the plan(s) and amendment(s). <br />Again, we believe our plan wi11 follow the original contour of the east sloping hogback <br />formation. True, across-sectional view may be different than a cross sectional view <br />of our interpretation. Yet, we believe both probably comply with the plan(s). Our <br />view, we believe, probably best interprets the plan(s) because it does no': single out <br />any single phrase of the plan(s) language but instead relies upon a reading of all of <br />the plan(s) language. In my view, that is the correct way to interpret language and is <br />consistent with the manner in which courts of law interpret language. This is not to <br />suggest you are wrong in your interpretation but only is intended as suggesting that <br />we believe our interpretation may be more accurate. <br />We believe your interpretation substantially increases the bonding <br />requirement of the two quarries. Yet, we are of the opinion that there will be no <br />significant difference in the field that would substantially deviate from the existing <br />topography. In other words, it is our opinion that once reclamation is completed, <br />utilizing our interpretation, the distinction between the appearance and what the <br />appearance would be following your interpretation would not be significant. We <br />recognize that perhaps reasonable people may differ with our interpretations. <br />Finally, it is my understanding that after you receive this interpretation you <br />believe it might be appropriate that representatives get together to discuss this letter <br />and the related issues. I believe we would plan to have three persons in attendance <br />at the meeting. They would include myself, Sam Lien, Mike Golliher, and Rob <br />Kisner. Please call at your convenience to arrange a meeting. Thank ycu for your <br />cooperation and courtesies. <br />