Laserfiche WebLink
y • • III III III III IIII III • <br />999 <br />' PRESENTATION TO THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />OCTOBER 24, 1986 <br />LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD: <br />FOR THE RECORD I AM DIANA KNODE, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ETC., ETC., FOR <br />THE MINED LAND RECLAhVaTION DIVISION. <br />ALL OF MY AGENDA ITEMS ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE SO BEFORE I BEGIN THE <br />INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU SOME GENERAL BACKGROUND <br />INFORh1ATI0N. STAFF EXHIBIT A. <br />ON OR ABOUT JULY 21, 1986, THE DIVISION RECEIVED NOTICES OF CANCELLATION <br />OF FINANCIAL WARRANTY EFFECTIVE AUGUST 14, 1986, ON VARIOUS MINING <br />OPERATIONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE DUE TO LIQUIDATION OF ALLIED FIDELITY <br />INSURANCE COMPANY. WE RECEIVED 13 NOTICES, EFFECTING 18 PERMITS. <br />THOSE PARTICULAR FILES WERE PULLED AND LETTERS WENT OUT ON JULY 29 <br />ADVISING THOSE OPERATORS OF THE NEED TO SECURE NEIJ FINANCIAL WARRANTY <br />AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. <br />A SEARCH WAS THEN CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE FROM OUR OWN RECORDS IF THERE <br />WERE OTHER MIf1ING COMPANIES COVERED BY ALLIED FIDELITY ON WHICH WE <br />HADN'T RECEIVED NOTICE. I FOUND 20 MORE COMPANIES, EFFECTING 25 PERMITS. <br />ANOTHER MAILING WAS MADE ON AUGUST 14 TO THESE 20 COMPANIES ADVISING <br />THEM ALSO OF THE CANCELLATION OF THEIR FINANCIAL WARRANTIES AND THE <br />NEED TO PROVIDE REPLACEMENTS. <br />OF THE TOTAL OF 33 COMPANIES INVOLVED ONLY 13 RESPONDED TO MY CORRESPONDENCE. <br />THEREFORE, ON SEPTEMBER 29 I SENT A SECOND LETTER TO THE 20 COMPANIES THAT <br />DID NOT RESPOND, ADVISING THEM THAT THE DIVISION HAD FOUND REASON TO BELIEVE <br />THAT A VIOLATION EXISTS ON EACH PERMIT AND THAT THE MATTER WAS SCHEDULED <br />FOR FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS MEETING. <br />THOSE 20 COMPANIES ARE AGENDA ITEf4S 52 THRU 73. <br />