Laserfiche WebLink
10-03-1996 1:16PM FROM ENG. WEST ELK MINE 970 9295050 <br />P. 3 <br />/~ <br />~~ MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY <br />WEST ELK MINE <br />TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD <br />DATE: October 2 1996 TIME: Approximately 4:30 p.m. <br />BETWEEN: Phil Schmidt COMPANY: Mountain Coal Company <br />AND: Lars Mautz COMPANY: <br />SUBJECT: Access onto the Mautz propeM for the purpose of MCC subsidence and <br />hydroloov monitorino. <br />SUMMARY <br />called Lany Mautz on the affemoon of October 2 to inquire about diswssions that Lany had recently <br />had with Dave Nicewi¢ and Ron Hanna (WATEC) regarding access to his property for subsidence and <br />hydrology monitoring respectively. Lany said to me that he had indicated to Dave and Ron that he did <br />not want to hear from ARCO, see anyone from ARCO, or have anybody even affiliated with ARCO on <br />his property (or even to think about them). He was very distraught, and that the letter from CDMG <br />regarding the CDMG inspection on the landslide/subsidence issue had triggered this recent inclination <br />to deny access by ARCO/MCC. <br />Larry's interpretation of the letters message is that there is no subsidence, therefore, he feels that if <br />there is no subsidence, there is no reason to monitor for subsidence, and if there is no reason to <br />monitor for subsidence, there is no reason to access his property. Similarly with hydrology, if there is <br />no subsidence, there could be no damage to any water resources, ponds, springs, etc.; therefore, there <br />is no reason to monitor for hydrology, and no need for access. <br />I mentioned to Lany that MCC was making an effort to be as efficient as possible in accessing the <br />monitoring site by accessing the site when the weather is good and in between hunting seasons; all in <br />efforts to minimize our impact with his hunting activities. <br />Larry mentioned inconsistent resolutions during the conversation including: 1) He never wanted to see <br />us again, and he never wanted us on his property again, 2) he is going to lock the gates at Lone Pine <br />above our fan so if we ever want access we will nave to call and clear permission to gain access, 3) he <br />said the only way we are going to access his property is to take him to court, 4) he also mentioned that <br />maybe we can talk about this on November 15, after hunting season. He came from several different <br />directions on where we may be headed with this access issue. I did not diswss with Lany the existing <br />access lease we had signed with him a couple of years ago, him giving us access for monitoring, etc. I <br />did not mention that. <br />Larry mentioned that he is very upset about the hutch being missing from one of the old dilapidated <br />cabins in Lone Pine. He feels very strongly that one of our people (either employees or contractors) <br />have stolen that hutch. He also feels that it was none of his people that stole it. My comment back to <br />him was that I was not aware of anybody affiliated with MCC stealing it, but I am not sure of that as well <br />as 1 am not sure that it wasn't his people that stole the hutch, or somebody passing through. <br />