Laserfiche WebLink
T <br />Jerome Cate <br />Page 2 <br />forfeited as a result of this failure and the area is now being <br />reclaimed by DMG in accordance with Section 39-33-124(4), (1984, <br />as amended). <br />There is no requirement in the Act or the Regulations of <br />the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining (Rules) <br />to notify landowners of any of the above-referenced actions, <br />unless the landowner is the permittee. Since your client was not <br />the permittee of the above-referenced permit, DMG is not required <br />to notify your client prior to commencing its statutorily author- <br />ized reclamation activities. <br />Sam Arness was, however, notified of MLRB permit revocation <br />and bond forfeiture proceedings against Peerless' permit and bond <br />during the 1988 1990 time period. (Enclosures). DMG also noti- <br />fied Jack Purdy, a representative of Pennsylvania West Coal Co., <br />a company that had submitted an application to re-permit the <br />site, in a July 9, 1993 letter, that, as the new application was <br />still incomplete, DMG was proceeding with reclamation. In Sep- <br />tember of 1993, the DMG again notified Mr. Purdy of the upcoming <br />reclamation, at this time stating that it would begin in October <br />of 1993. (Enclosures) <br />To conclude, DMG is exercising its duly authorized statu- <br />tory authority to reclaim lands disturbed by coal mining activi- <br />ties, is in compliance with the Act and the Rules, and is not in <br />trespass on your client's property. Moreover, notification to <br />your client is not required by the Act or the Rules. <br />Sincerely, <br />Stephen M. Brown <br />Assistant Attorney General <br />Natural Resources Section <br />SMB:vg <br />Enclosures <br />cc: Mike Long <br />Steve Renner <br />Dan Hernandez <br />AG File No. EEN9400219 <br />