Laserfiche WebLink
49. On April 23, 2010, the Division responded to the TDN stating that WFC was in <br />compliance with its permit and the regulations of the Colorado Coal Program. The Division also <br />supplied the OSM with a detailed factual chronology and made several findings of fact <br />concerning the history of the permit process, encompassing the entirety of the allegations <br />contained in Ms. Turner's citizen complaint. The Division found there was no violation of either <br />the Permit or the Colorado Coal Program. <br />50. The Denver Field Division of the OSM then issued a written finding to the <br />Division stating that the terms of the WFC Permit properly implement the requirements of the <br />Colorado Coal Program and that mining and reclamation of the Morgan property was conducted <br />in accordance with the approved Permit. <br />51. Ms. Turner sought informal review of this decision with the Regional Director of <br />OSM. On June 9, 2010, the Regional Director issued an interim finding that left undisturbed the <br />Field Division finding of compliance. However, the Regional Director never issued a final <br />finding, and the period allowed by the federal regulations that implement SMCRA for the <br />completion of the informal review process expired without any further finding being issued. <br />52. Ms. Turner never sought formal review by the Board of the Division's April 23, <br />2010 determination. The period allowed by Colorado statute to seek such review expired <br />without any Counterclaim Defendant seeking review. Ms. Turner also never sought formal <br />review by OSM. <br />53. On May 18, 2010, the Division sent WFC a letter urging the company to negotiate <br />with Ms. Turner as the representative of the Morgan family in an effort to resolve disputed issues <br />relating to PR -06 and the reclamation of the Morgan Property. The Division admonished WFC <br />that it would require substantial discussions to take place and consent to WFC's activities to be <br />obtained and documented pursuant to the Division's authority to protect landowners under the <br />Colorado Coal Program. <br />54. WFC engaged in intensive negotiations with the Morgan family including Ms. <br />Turner throughout the summer of 2010. These discussions were fruitful and WFC reached, or so <br />it thought, agreement with the Morgans concerning the entirety of the proposed reclamation of <br />the Morgan property, except for issues where the NRCS, reviewing all the plans proposed by <br />WFC, did not approve. WFC engaged in this lengthy, burdensome, three -way negotiation <br />process in order to ensure that the reclamation plan conformed the Counterclaim Defendants' <br />desires and also would receive approval by the NRCS. <br />55. During these negotiations, Ms. Turner asserted that she was not acting on behalf <br />of Frank and Mary Lou Morgan, but rather asserting her own interests as the lessee of a <br />purported surface lease existing between her and the owners of the Property. In subsequent <br />filings with the Division and OSM, Ms. Turner and Mr. Morgan asserted this purported lease as <br />giving them an interest in the Property. <br />56. WFC's only notice of the existence of this purported lease was in a letter received <br />from Frank Morgan during 2008; WFC has never been provided a copy of the putative surface <br />(00026036.11 7 <br />