My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE34672
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE34672
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:44:31 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:18:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981015
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
10/4/1994
Doc Name
FRUITA MINE TEN DAY NOTICE 91-02-116-05 C-81-015
From
DMG
To
OSM
Violation No.
TD1991020116005TV3
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.
/
2
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 />III IIIIIIIIIIIII III ~~- - ~o~ <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />131 7 Sherman SL, Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 8020) <br />Phone: 13031 866-3 567 <br />FAX: p03) 832-8106 <br />October 4, 1994 <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />Mr. Thomas Ehmett <br />Acting Director <br />office of Surface <br />Albuquerque Field <br />505 Marquette Ave <br />Albuquerque, NM . <br />Mining <br />Office <br />NW, Suite 1200 <br />87102 <br />RE: Fruita Mine Ten-Day Notice 91-02-116-05 (C-81-015) <br />Dear Mr. Ehmett: <br />~I~~~. <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCE <br />lames 5. Luchhead <br />E.ec Wive Direao~ <br />m¢hael B. Long <br />Division Dimclo~ <br />In correspondence dated May 5, 1994 from Steve Renner, the Division <br />of Minerals and Geology indicated it had referred the question of <br />the feasibility of further legal action against the "permittee" of <br />the Fruita Mine to the Colorado Attorney General's office. The <br />Attorney General has responded. <br />OSM has raised. <br />The Attorney General's legal opinion is that any court action by <br />the State of Colorado attempting to require American Shield to <br />eliminate the highwall or impose civil or other penalties against <br />the company for failure to eliminate a highwall would be arbitrary <br />and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence. This <br />opinion is based largely on the fact that the Division's own <br />technical findings are that total backfilling of the highwall would <br />be infeasible and partial backfilling is not justified due to <br />stabiliilty concerns. Because any court action would be reversed <br />and/or remanded, the Attorney General recommended that the Division <br />not initiate a court action related to the highwall issue which the <br />Based on the Attorney General's recommendation, the Division will <br />not pursue further legal action against American Shield or its <br />owners and controllers. The forfeited bond funds which the <br />Division currently holds will be applied toward revegetation <br />efforts and any maintenance which may become necessary at the mine <br />site. This work will probably be put out for bid in the summer of <br />1995. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.