Laserfiche WebLink
That there are no formal public hearing or public participation processes set forth in <br /> the Coal Act under the circumstances of this case does not mean the Division has not <br /> considered public input. Indeed, the Division has made substantial efforts to keep the public <br /> and the county informed about the progress of reclamation as well as its plan for reclamation. <br /> The Division has held numerous public meetings and has conducted many tours of the site <br /> for the purpose of keeping concerned citizens updated. The Division has also disseminated <br /> information concerning reclamation and has had its representative speak to numerous citizen <br /> groups and to Pitkin County Commissioners about the site. <br /> Thus, even though the Coal Act's references to public and/or county participation are <br /> limited to situations during the application process or term of the permit, the Division has <br /> considered the comments of the public as an important element in this process. As to the <br /> Motion to Strike, Pitkin County has not established sufficient interest or authority to raise <br /> defenses as a party to claims one through four of the Amended Third-Party Complaint. With <br /> permission of this Court, the county can set forth its concerns about reclamation as amicus <br /> curiae if it so desires.4 <br /> °The Division wants to address certain issues raised by Mid-Continent Resources' Motion to Strike: <br /> I Please note that the Division disagrees with Mid-Continent's assertion in its Amended Third-Party Complaint and in <br /> its present motion its argument that the bankruptcy court approved of a reclamation plan or that the liquidation plan incorporated <br /> a reclamation plan. The liquidation plan merely refers to a reclamation plan and defines that term as the plan the dined Land <br /> Reclamation Board approved and which is governed by the Coal Act. Upon information and belief,at no time did the <br /> bankruptcy court see, let alone approve of,specific reclamation tasks to be performed at the nine site "file liquidation plan itself <br /> does not set forth any of the specific work to be done at the site. Rather,the liquidation plan is a funding mechanism for <br /> reclamation; the Coal Act and its implementing regulations, not the liquidation plan,govern the reclamation to be done at the <br /> site. The Division should be given the discretion to make professional judgment calls on implementing the reclamation <br /> standards,especially in light of Mid-Continent Resources' bankruptcy and the limited funds available for reclanmauon. <br /> 2. It is also ironic that despite the fact that Mid-Continent Resources' position in this case is that the reclamation plan <br /> is set in stone by the liquidation plan based on a contract theory, %lid-Continent Resources insists that the reclamation plan can <br /> be changed whenever Mid-Continent wants or needs the plan to be changed. <br /> 3. It should be noted that contrary to Mid-Continent Resources's assertion on page S of its motion,the Division has <br /> not removed the coal refuse pile,but has recontoured it. <br /> 8 <br />