Laserfiche WebLink
,( -;"" <br />t, .e( ( z ; _ e 57 v <br />c : re _ e 47.-- (--c 5 <br />contained in the May 1991 Board Order, but it did not embody the <br />entirety of the August Board action: it failed to reflect that <br />the modifications to the Schedule were to be agreed_upon <br />the Division and Resources. <br />Because the Schedule in the May 1991 Board Order had directed <br />that a portion of the reclamation was to be performed by Resources <br />before August of 1992, by the time the Board implemented the <br />Schedule, it was physically impossible for Resources to comply <br />with it. Nonetheless, Resources, as debtor in possession pursuant <br />to authorization of the bankruptcy court, performed, or caused to <br />be performed, substantial reclamation work at the mine site in <br />�t°,'jC� St d t'19 /`7 rw -- <br />Lot G- If � <br />1992 and 1993. cn"`-' Pt 7 e , t G r v^- er 6/ S r /3 SO ,g,,� _w L <br />y <br />In the summer of 1993, the Division issued to Resources a <br />Notice of Violation, alleging that Resources had failed to reclaim <br />the mine site in accordance with the Schedule in the May 22, 1991 <br />Board Order. Resources requested a conference on that Notice of <br />Violation, and early in 1994 that conference was conducted, As a <br />result of that conference, the Division's conference officer <br />(v e n_ S rrA e 7 <br />concluded that Resources was contemporaneously rec re- <br />the mine <br />site. See January 25, 1994 memorandum by Sandy Brown, attached as <br />Attachment K to Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion for <br />Summary Judgment. <br />While the proceedings on the Notice of Violation described <br />above were pending, on September 20, 1993 the Division commenced <br />this lawsuit. In an amended complaint, filed on September 27, <br />-4- <br />90'd 99E# W1/4460:0T S66T '17T Kidd 9ii0Tt7Z R0R T :01 te.anveu :Wpdd <br />