My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1994-07-28_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1994-07-28_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2021 10:55:39 AM
Creation date
5/1/2012 10:05:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
7/28/1994
Doc Name
Confirmation of Resources Chapter 11 plan and receipt sale of a number of assets
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
Cheryl A. Linden <br /> July 28 , 1994 <br /> Page 8 <br /> Post-Mining Uses. Resources has been converting the <br /> large coal bin at the Unit Train Loadout Facility into a warehouse . <br /> This was acknowledged in the approved reclamation plan as a <br /> probable post-mining use . Will the Division cooperate with <br /> Resources in converting some existing improvements to post-mining <br /> uses which will eliminate the need to remove those improvements? <br /> In addition, will the Division work with Resources to <br /> preserve access to the mine site in the manner contemplated by the <br /> reclamation plan? This is important to preserving the value of the <br /> 6, 000 acres owned by Resources in Coal Basin, as to which Resources <br /> is negotiating a trade with the U. S . Forest Service . <br /> Deviations from Approved Reclamation Plan. It is <br /> Resources' understanding that the Division is contemplating <br /> expending funds on tasks which are not required by the approved <br /> reclamation plan. For example, Steve Renner recently has indicated <br /> his intention to eliminate certain roads, which is inconsistent <br /> with the reclamation plan. Elimination of roads would restrict <br /> access which is needed for ongoing water monitoring, and would <br /> impair the value of property which is going to be sold or traded to <br /> the Forest Service and which thereby will help pay for reclamation <br /> of the mine . Resources believes that the reclamation of roads as <br /> discussed by Mr. Renner would be environmentally unsound and would <br /> result in large expenditures which are not contemplated by the <br /> reclamation plan. <br /> Similarly, the Division has been discussing diverting the <br /> natural channel of Dutch Creek through the preparation plant area. <br /> This is not required by the reclamation plan. <br /> Resources objects to any deviations from the approved <br /> reclamation plan which increase reclamation costs . If Resources <br /> learns of any such deviations, it will seek to enjoin the Division <br /> and to hold the Division to the terms of the Plan. I believe that <br /> the Reclamation Defendants have a similar concern, and that Joel <br /> Cantrick will be communicating separately with you about this . <br /> To minimize disagreements about the nature of the <br /> services which the Division procures, Resources requests that it be <br /> provided with all requests for bids, including the scope of work <br /> for which bids are requested. Resources also requests the right to <br /> be present at pre-bid meetings, including meetings at the mine site <br /> with prospective contractors . Resources also requests copies of <br /> all contracts procured by the Division. Resources also requests an <br /> accounting from the Division regarding all expenditures of funds <br /> provided to the MLRB or the Division from the sale of Resources' <br /> assets . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.