Laserfiche WebLink
requirements set forth in the Act, rules, reclamation plan and permit. Here, Frontier's bond <br />does not meet regulatory requirements. Therefore, Powderhor is in violation of the bond <br />conditions. <br />In addition, Rule 3.04.1(1)(b) states the if a permittee has failed to conduct surface <br />mining and reclamation operations in compliance with the Act, rules and permit within the <br />time required and that it is necessary, in order to fulfill the requirements of the permit and <br />reclamation plan, to have someone other than the permittee correct or complete reclamation, <br />the Board shall forfeit the bond. 2 C.C.R. 407-2, Rule 3.04.1(1)(b). In the present matter, <br />Powderhor is in violation of the Act and regulations because it has been deemed to be <br />without bond coverage. In addition, Powderhom has not shown that it has the ability to <br />conduct and complete its reclamation plan. Indeed, there is serious doubt, given its lack of <br />financial support, that Powderhor can perform reclamation. Therefore, under the above <br />cited rule, the Board should forfeit Frontier's bond. <br />VII. <br />THERE IS NOTHING INEQUITABLE ABOUT REQUIItING POWDERHORN TO <br />COMPLY WTTH THE REGULATIONS AND REPLACE ITS BOND. <br />Powderhor azgues that it would be inequitable to impute a violation to Powderhom <br />because of Frontier's financial situation. The Division is not imputing a violation to <br />Powderhom; Powderhor is itself in violation. Powderhor, as the permittee, is required to <br />19 <br />