Laserfiche WebLink
lease. On information and belief, this purported surface lease has never been recorded in the real <br />estate records of Montrose County, or if so, was recorded after September 11, 1998. <br />57. On August 29, 2010, Frank Morgan with JoEllen Turner acting as "attorney in <br />fact" filed the instant lawsuit against WFC seeking $5.1 Million dollars in damages based upon <br />unspecified claims. Mr. Morgan also filed suit a separate suit seeking an equal amount from the <br />Division. <br />58. On September 30, 2010, the Division approved PR -06. The Division issued <br />detailed written findings addressing each of the objections Ms. Turner had raised during the <br />review process. <br />59. Shortly after the Division approved PR -06, some or all of Counterclaim <br />Defendants moved a side roll sprinkler system to the leading edge of the undisturbed topsoil next <br />to the active mining area, turned it on and left it running for several days. The sprinkler system <br />had at least six rain birds missing and an equal number stuck and not oscillating. The water was <br />not moved during that time and was not turned off until counsel for WFC sent the Lessor a cease <br />and desist letter. <br />60. The only purpose for these actions was to attempt to saturate the topsoil to prevent <br />WFC from being able to move it and to delay the mining operation. <br />61. On October 1, 2010, the NRCS provided WFC a letter from Jim Boyd, the soil <br />scientist who had reviewed the topsoil management and other aspects of PR -06. Mr. Boyd <br />stated, "I have reviewed the soil management and re- vegetation practices listed in [PR -06]. I am <br />in support of the practices listed in their detail." <br />62. Over the entirety of the PR -06 review process, the Division had required WFC to <br />respond to 5 so- called "Adequacy Reviews." Each and every one of these reviews addressed <br />issues specifically pertaining to the Morgan family or an objection that had been raised by Ms. <br />Turner. These reviews typically involved responding to approximately 30 pages of single - <br />spaced text consisting of detailed questions WFC was to answer. <br />63. This process was exhaustive and required the extended attention of WFC's Mine <br />Manager, Chief Engineer, consultants, and legal counsel, all to address issues that had already <br />been resolved by agreement with the Morgans and in their favor. <br />64. After the Morgan lawsuit was filed, WFC delayed payment of the 2010 royalty <br />payment that but for breach would be due to the Lessor under the Coal Mining Lease and <br />attempted to negotiate resolution of this dispute, including withdrawal of the Morgan's <br />continuing objections to PR -06. In response, Ms. Turner filed a second citizen complaint with <br />OSM (the "Second Citizen Complaint "). The Division found the complaint to be unfounded on <br />October 14, 2010, stating that a private dispute over a royalty payment was not within the <br />agency's jurisdiction. <br />65. On October 21, 2010, Ms. Turner and Michael Morgan filed an objection to the <br />Division's proposed decision to approve PR -06. Ms. Turner and Michael Morgan asserted they <br />were doing so on their own behalf, and not on behalf of Frank and Mary Lou Morgan. In their <br />(00026036.1) 8 <br />