Laserfiche WebLink
06/12/2001 15:35 FAa <br />Snell & Wilmer <br />L.L.P. <br />June 12, 2001 <br />Page 2 <br />C~ 003/005 <br />Order Comment 4 2. Counsel to the Division reads four pages of the transcript literally to arrive <br />at its conclusion. The full hearing discussion and Board orders to the Division that preceded <br />these four pages of transcript, we believe, will beaz out the views of Powderhom. Were the <br />position of Counsel to the Division correct, there would be no need for the Board to have <br />instructed its counsel to work with the parties in arriving at proposed language for the order. <br />Certainly, the Board must have intended for Powderhom to receive some comfort from the order. <br />Written as proposed by counsel to the Division, there would be no need for participation by <br />Powdethorn as it would have received none of the relief it has requested. <br />The context of the discussions is important to interpreting the final motion of the Board. <br />The Boazd had issued certain directives to the Division during the course of the hearing. Then, <br />in order to resolve certain remaining issues, the Boazd instructed representatives of the parties to <br />work together in arriving at a solution. Following these discussions, the parties returned before <br />the Boazd, and Mr. Long presented the resolution, including what Powderhom understood to <br />include a mutually agreed upon stay of the litigation it would be forced to file in order to <br />preserve its appeal rights. Perhaps it was an oversight by the parties not to reiterate the prior <br />directives of the Boazd in the final motion. However, these were important issues resolved by <br />the Boazd and certainly must have been intended by the Board to be included in its written order. <br />The Board recognized that the issues before it were created by the status of Frontier <br />rather than any misdeeds of Powderhom. Tt was the clear intention of the Board to have <br />Powderhom continue its ongoing reclamation without jeopardizing the reorganization of its <br />pazent company. This can not be achieved by following the approach suggested by counsel for <br />the Division, which would jeopardize reclamation at the property and result in a punitive action <br />against Powderhom, despite its good faith compliance with the law. Counsel to the Division <br />seems to be recommending a harsh and undeserving remedy imposed as an extreme and <br />unprincipled exercise of authority. <br />Powderhom Responses to June 7.2001 Linden Letter <br />Contrary to the suggestions provided by Powderhom, which seek to capture the directives <br />of the Boazd, counsel to the Division in its comments seeks to create an administrative record <br />from whole cloth. The Board found that NOVs 2000-010 and 2001-005 were unabated. The <br />Board, to the best of Powderhom's knowledge, made no other specific findings, although the <br />transcript may provide additional information as to the Boards decision. As a result, Powderhom <br />objects to the suggested changes in the Linden letter of June 7, 2001, with the exception that the <br />bond is payable to the Boazd and Office of Surface Mining, rather than to the Board and Bureau <br />of Land Management. In addition, Powdethorn makes the following specific objections. <br />Findines Comment 4 1. To the best of Powderhom's recollection, the Boazd received no <br />testimony or evidence concerning the ownership of federal coal. In fact, the testimony was that <br />the coal leases have been relinquished. The Board made no findings and issued no directives <br />concerning federal coal. <br />13569.1 <br />