My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV90619
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV90619
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:12:19 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:04:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981015
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
9/16/1994
Doc Name
Memo on Whether to go Into Litigation For Highwall
From
DEPT OF LAW
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
SF1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Mike Long, Director, Minerals and Geology <br />Page 4 <br />CONFIDENTIAL <br />On March 30, 1999, DMG transmitted to AFO DMG's analysis of <br />the technical feasibility of elimination of the Fruita Mine <br />highwall. That analysis concluded that it would be technically <br />infeasible and environmentally undesirable to eliminate the <br />Fruita Mine highwall. DMG's transmittal letter also noted that <br />the technical analysis "demonstrates that the current configura- <br />tion complies with the terms of the recently approved rules which <br />allow for retention of pre-SMCRA highwalls in certain limited <br />circumstances." <br />AFO made a finding of an inappropriate response on April <br />26, 1999 asserting that the Fruita Mine did not qualify for the <br />highwall elimination exemption because it had not been continu- <br />ously mined since August 3, 1977.**2 DMG responded on May 5, <br />1994 asserting that the Fruita Mine in fact qualified for the <br />"continuously mined" exemption in the Rules, because the term <br />"operations" is defined in the Act to include reclamation activi- <br />ties. <br />DMG also stated in the May 5, 1994, letter that it would <br />seek an opinion from this office to determine whether a suit to <br />compel American Shield to eliminate the highwall at the Fruita <br />Mine would be successful. <br />III. Legal Analysis <br />The foregoing factual recitation of the history of this <br />issue indicates that DMG and OSM/AFO have had a number of differ- <br />ences of interpretation regarding whether recently promulgated <br />rules by the Board can be applied to a pre-existing NOV, what <br />constitutes "continuous" mining, and what the term "mining oper- <br />ations" includes. Though a legal analysis by this office of <br />these differences of interpretation might be required at some <br />point, it is not necessary to answer your question to this office <br />-- whether a court action by DMG against American Shield would be <br />successful. <br />From the above factual recitation it is clear that American <br />2** This "finding" apparently contradicts AFO's earlier statement <br />that the mine did not qualify for a "remining" exemption because <br />it had been continuously mined since 1977. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.