Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Steven G. Renner 3 <br /> performance even now. The Board ordered permit revocation merely requires Mid- <br /> Continent to conduct reclamation as per the settlement agreement. Since Mid- <br /> Continent is a year behind in compliance with the time frames, and makes no <br /> illusions as to ever being able to catch up to the specified time frames, the effect of <br /> the Board Order is to simply require Mid-Continent to reclaim the mine; a <br /> requirement that Mid-Continent is subject to without the Order. <br /> AFO disagrees with DMG as to the stated fact that reclamation is proceeding as <br /> contemporaneously as is practicable. The mining operations have been ceased, <br /> without prospects of a buyer, for over a year. According to the approved <br /> reclamation schedule, Mines 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 should have had reclamation <br /> completed by October 1992. None of the areas are reclaimed. DMG and the <br /> Board have found that Mid-Continent is not in compliance with the approved <br /> reclamation schedule and have revoked the permit as a result. Now DMG <br /> propounds the operation to be reclaiming as contemporaneously as practicable <br /> under the circumstances. AFO is not convinced that there is no way of achieving <br /> reclamation of this site. <br /> As a separate issue relating solely to violation 4 of 4 of the TDN, AFO was told <br /> during the inspection by Mr. Waldren that Mid-Continent had not used the <br /> referenced abutment and bridge during the post-law period. AFO was able to <br /> determine from the U.S. Forest Service photographs that the bridge was used until <br /> sometime in 1981, at the least. Photographs dated 1990, show the bridge to be <br /> washed out. The photo record shows that Mid-Continent used the bridge for at <br /> least four years after enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation <br /> Act. DMG does not state in its response that Mid-Continent is responsible for <br /> reclamation of the location, only that Mid-Continent has informed DMG that the <br /> location is to be reclaimed this season. AFO assumes that DMG now holds Mid- <br /> Continent responsible for the required reclamation. <br /> AFO finds that Mid-Continent is delinquent in reclamation with regard to violations <br /> 3 and 4 of the TDN. Also, the reclamation violations of the approved Colorado <br /> program have never been addressed by DMG with the required enforcement <br /> action. Therefore, AFO finds the DMG response with regard to violations 3 and 4 <br /> of the TDN to be arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. <br /> If you disagree with the above finding, you may request an informal review in <br /> accordance with 30 CFR 842.11 (b)(1)(iii)(A). The request may be filed at this <br /> office or with the Deputy Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and <br /> Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240. Your <br /> request must be received within five days of receipt of this letter. A Federal <br />