1999-04-05_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: GENERAL DOCUMENTS
• Doc Date: 4/5/1999
• Doc Name: Responses
• From: Burns, Figa & Will, P.C.
• To: Cheryl Linden
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

04/05/99 17:32 FAX [phone] BURNS FIGA & WILL
12
will exhaust all funds available to it under the Bankruptcy Liquidation Plan before completing all
reclamation.
ANSWER NO. 9: Among others, DMG's "accounting" dated January 22, 1998, as
revised February 3, 1998, Deposition of Steven G. Renner taken March 1, 1995, letter from
Cheryl Linden to Joel Cantrick dated January 31, 1995, Exhibit 131 from DMG v. Reeves, et al.,
Pitkin County District Court, Case No. 93 -CV -201.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Identify each document referred to or relied upon to
respond to the above Interrogatory no. 9.
ANSWER NO. 10: See response to Interrogatory No. 9, above.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State the factual and /or legal basis for the LLC's
allegation, pleading, statement, belief, or contention in paragraph 39 of the LLC's complaint that
some of the reclamation that DMG performed on the LLC's property has been substandard and in
breach of the reclamation plan's requirements. Include in your response the specific reclamation
tasks which are alleged to be in violation of the reclamation plan and/or were substandard; for
each reclamation task you allege is substandard and/or in violation of the reclamation plan, cite
the specific portion of the reclamation plan upon which you relied or referred in responding to
this interrogatory or which relates to the reclamation task alleged to be in violation of the plan
and/or substandard; for each reclamation task, state the basis for your allegation that the task is in
violation of the reclamation plan; state the definition of "substandard" used in making this
allegation; and as to each task alleged to be substandard, each methodology used and actually
applied in making the determination that a reclamation task was substandard.
ANSWER NO. 11: Some of the contouring of the ground above the road between the
Prep Plant site and the rock tunnel entrance was done improperly so that even though the area
was on a mild grade, a large slump and erosion occurred. Overall, the revegation practices
employed by CDMG in their standard 20.0 construction performance standard for revegetation
do not correspond with the approved reclamation plan. Backfilling of the highwall at the rock
tunnel area was not undertaken to the standards of the Reclamation Plan. It is questionable
whether the Dutch Creek diversion and the'reshaping of the old refuse pile (Huntsman project)
were conducted with prudent reclamation practices in mind
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify each document referred to or relied upon in
responding to the above Interrogatory no. 11.
ANSWER NO. 12: See response to Interrogatory No. 11, above.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State the factual and/or legal basis for the allegation in
paragraph 40 of the LLC's complaint that the LLC has been damaged by DMG's failure to
comply with the reclamation plan for reclamation already performed on the LLC's property.
Include in your response an identification of each reclamation task the LLC is alleging was in
violation of the reclamation plan and for each reclamation task, identify the specific portion of
5