GENERAL35013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

challenge in litigation filed in the United States District Court here in Denver list week. Since approximately 87$ of *_he coai involved in this application is federal, it is critical that the bond be payable to the United States as well as the state of Colorado. The original applicant for the proposed permit was GF.X Colorado, Inc. The mines that are the subject of this application were purchased by Powderhorn Coal Company 9 months after t'~e notice of filing was published, but there is no indication that Powder- horn has met the requirements to become t'~e applicant. In addition, since "Western Associated Coal Corporation (Western) is a managing partner for Powderhorn Coal Company" (p.9), the state's legal, financial, and compliance findings appear to be incomplete. It is not cleaz whether YJestern is the operator, in which case 30 C.F.R. § 786.19(1) would apply, but it is clear that Western is at least an "affiliate" within the meaning of 30 C.F.R. §. 778.14 (a) so the information necessary to make the same findings with regard to Western must be in the applica~ion. There is no indication in the state's documentation that such is the case. The statement that "under intensive management, the applicant should be able to meet the revegetation success criteria," seems to be at best a marginal determination of compliance. Nevertheless, this finding together with other findings that appear to be only mazginally supported, and the scattered references to inadequate or missing data should pct present substantial litigation risks because the area has been mined continuously since 1899. The possibility of subsidence affect- ing the Ute water District facilities or the Little Hookcliffs Wild Horse Area are more probable litigation risks and they appear to be unavoidable. Glenn F. Tiedt For the Regional Solicitor Rocky Mountain Region 2