My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL33133
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL33133
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:55:17 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 7:31:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981041
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
9/18/2000
Doc Name
EMAIL ONE MORE THING
From
DAN MATHEWS
To
DAVID BERRY
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii <br />999 <br />Mathews, Dan <br />From: Mathews, Dan <br />Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 2:35 PM <br />To: Berry, David <br />Subject: one more thing... <br />Before my phone cut us off, I said there was one other thing I wanted to discuss. I had a message to call Rudy Fontaneri <br />(I assume regarding permitting of the Roadside South Facilities). l guess its not for us to prejudge whether Rudy would <br />be capable of posting a reclamation bond and handling all of the other costs and responsibilities of a coal permit, so I <br />probably need to advise him as to how he would need to proceed, if he indeed wishes to assume the permitting and <br />reclamation responsibility for Roadside South. This would not be a simple permit transfer, because Rudy is interested in <br />only a portion of the existing Roadside permit area (the southside facilities}. So I presume that Fontaneri would need to <br />submit application for a new reclamation only permit application. The new permit area would be carved out of the <br />existing Powderhom pennil area. Once the application is approved, and a new reclamation bond accepted, the <br />Powderhom permit could be revised to delete the Fontaneri permit area, and the Powderhorn bond could be returned. <br />I'm skeptical that this could actually happen, but procedurally, is this how it should be handled? Is there a simpler <br />mechanism you can think of? <br />On the subject of Grand Junction office relocation/reorganization, lexpect Iwill be receiving some formal <br />notification/marching orders from headquarters? A memo to all of us affected explaining what is happening as far as <br />office move, Paul K status, new personnel assigned to our office, and schedule for office and personnel moves would be <br />appreciated. Also, if I am being assigned to locate new office space, it would be good if that assignment were made <br />known in the memo, with any pertinent guidanceirequirementsllimitations from management. If you know what I'm <br />saying. <br />Thanks. <br />/~ 7 ~ ~~n are `7`,3 `l`- 795`r~ <br />~~~ ~a--- <br />~~l.C /OHO' ~a~ <br />~~ ~~~~~ ~ E~~ <br />V~ c?~ G <br />C~---~-~-~- . <br /> <br />o ~~ <br /> <br />if <br />G.r~T~ ~-S~ rtit$~ <br />~~~ ~~ <br /> <br />_, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.