_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 ‎(252)‎

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: GENERAL DOCUMENTS
• Doc Name: Bid Documents ‎(IMP)‎ 1993 Correspondence
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Settlement Agreement also noted that the appraised value of the real property
needed to exceed the estimated bond amount by 15 percent. Adding 15 percent
to the $2.9 million MLRD determined was the bond liability amounts to $3.335
million. The 1988 appraisal valued the property at $3.34 million.
In early 1991 AFO was contacted by the U.S. Forest Service and concerned
citizens with rumors they had heard about Mid-Continent's poor financial condition.
AFO wrote a letter to MLRD on February 14, 1991, enumerating concerns about
the bond along with questioning a pattern of violations which had not been
adjudicated, though the timeframe for adjudication had passed. AFO also
expressed concern about the amount of bond after the March 8, 1991 meeting.
On March 18, 1991, AFO requested that the OSM Western Support Center review
the bond amount. On March 20, 1991, AFO wrote MLRD to express concerns
regarding the amount of bond liability and the validity and value of the real estate
collateral due to the tax lien on the property.
The WSC review was finalized September 25, 1991, indicating reclamation liability
of $4.3 million. On October 9, 1991 AFO wrote a Ten-Day Notice (TDN) for
insufficient bond based on the WSC review. MLRD responded to the TDN on
October 28, 1992, challenging WSC's proposed amount; the amount was
subsequently reduced to $3.4 million by WSC on November 27, 1991, because it
did not have sufficient information to refute MLRD's reasoning regarding some of
the calculations.
On November 15, 1991, AFO received a citizen's complaint regarding the
insufficiency of the bond amount because of the inadequacy of the real estate
collateral due to depreciation and the impact of the tax lien. AFO transmitted the
citizen complaint to MLRD by a Ten-Day Letter (TDL). MLRD responded on
December 3, 1991, stating that MLRD had acted appropriately and the bond
amount would be questioned, if necessary, on January 15, 1992, the date set in
the Settlement Agreement as the day MLRD would start forfeiture proceeding if
Mid-Continent had not held to the agreement. (This was put off for months
because of the pending sale).
On January 24, 1991 AFO found the State response to the TDN appropriate based
on finding the difference between $2.9 million and $3.4 million to be attributable to
acceptable differences in baseline assumptions. AFO found the State's response
to the TDL to be inappropriate. On February 3, 1992, the State appealed this AFO
decision and Headquarters overturned it in a letter to the State on March 30, 1992.
AFO received a copy of the letter April 20, 1992 and informed the citizen of the
results of his complaint April 24, 1992.
• Road drainage and revegetation problems.
From August 27 through 30, 1991, AFO conducted a follow-up inspection to
actions taken as a result of ten-day notices written after the October 1990 RSI and
to review erosion and road drainage problems recognized during the last 10
4 Mid-Continent January 26,1993