Laserfiche WebLink
fgA j 19 195 05:07PM DIV/MI&F;ALS2j2W1,3GY 303 945 23M P.4/6; <br /> mr. Michael B. song <br /> January Is, 1995. <br /> page - -2 <br /> from the Attorney General's office, was not permitted to deliver it <br /> until after hearing in •tha District Court .at 'Eagle on January 3, <br /> 1995. <br /> At that hearing, sirs. Trish Bangert and Ms. Cheryl Linden ' <br /> requested a stay Of the litigation in order that discussions might <br /> occur. The discussion last week did not indicate that DMG intends <br /> ,to go forward on the cpoperative approach with the Forest Service ' <br /> on the basis discussed last Fall which gives us a great deal of <br /> concern because the land - exchanges with the Forest Se=v:LCe are <br /> critical to securing funds for reclamation and other purposas under <br /> the Liquidation Flan. <br /> As I told you at the meeting last week, we are pYooeeding <br /> with . exchange contracts containing provisions that a condition <br /> precedent to closing will ; be reclamation, or provision for <br /> reclamation, of the disturbed lands in the exchange atea <br /> satisfactory to the United States. without the cooperation of the <br /> DMG in reaching consensus on a coordinated well-planned reclamation <br /> effort, the reclamation funding from, the exchange sales will not be ' <br /> available and the program may - be expected to deteriorate into a <br /> repetition of the very disappointing 1994 program. <br /> = believe such A Coordinated process, partiaaularly <br /> including involvement by .thexForest Service as the ultimate of4ner <br /> of the property, is required under the reclamation statutes- as <br /> mentioned in my letter of November 11, 1994.1 <br /> As we explained at last week's meeting, and Us Mr. <br /> Cantrick explained at the meeting on last Tuesday to Ms. Bangert <br /> and Ms. Linden, the Defendants do not feel that it is appropriate <br /> 1 Spa. 34-33-120(b) C.R.S. Provide$: "Restore land <br /> affected to 'a condition capable of supporting the uses• which it was <br /> Capable of supporting prior to any mining, or higher or better uses <br /> of which there is reasonO.ble ,likelihood, so long "as such use or <br /> uses do not present any actual or probable hazard to public health <br /> or safety or pone any actual or probable threat of water diminution <br /> or, pollution which would be' contrary to state or federal laws, <br /> rules, - or 'regu.l•at3.ons, and so long as the permit applicant'-s <br /> declared proposed land use following reclamation is not deemed to <br /> be jvpractlCal or unreasonable, is not inconsistent with applicable <br /> land use pol_.cies and piano, does-not involve unreasonable delay In <br /> :.mpiementation, - and is not violative Qf federal, sta�e, or local" <br /> laws." <br />