Laserfiche WebLink
Services, W. Hord Tipton, reversed the AFO determination that the <br /> State had inappropriately responded to the citizen complaint <br /> (Appendix 15) . In his decision, the Deputy Director specifically <br /> determined that the State of Colorado had in fact acted in <br /> accordance with the approved program, and had not abused its <br /> discretion in so doing. Further, the Deputy Director found that <br /> the entire issue of bond value may be moot given that the <br /> subsequent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Resources may have <br /> affected its ability to provide additional performance bond. <br /> Immediately upon filing of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in <br /> February, 1992, the Division entered its appearance with the <br /> court. In addition, special bankruptcy counsel from the Office <br /> of the Attorney General was obtained. These actions were <br /> undertaken to protect the State interest in accomplishing site <br /> reclamation and securing its claim to the performance bond. No <br /> other State or Federal agency has filed an appearance in <br /> bankruptcy court to date. <br /> As a direct result of the presumed bond instrument insufficiency, <br /> Colorado undertook an analysis of the possibility of obtaining <br /> reclamation funds through legal actions. Actions such as this <br /> are termed "alternative enforcement" by the OSM. This analysis <br /> began in 1992. The Albuquerque Field Office was informally <br /> appraised of the State intention to file a lawsuit against the <br /> agents of Mid-Continent Resources on April 26, 1993 . This suit <br /> was filed in Pitkin County District Court on September 17, 1993 <br /> (Appendix 16) , and requests that the court either order Resources <br /> to reclaim the site or provide funds sufficient for the State to <br /> accomplish site reclamation in accordance with the approved <br /> permit. The Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act (CRS <br /> 34-33-124) provides for such actions in those circumstances where <br /> the bond is insufficient to accomplish reclamation. <br /> Based upon the foregoing, Colorado asserts that it has <br /> appropriately and effectively implemented its approved program. <br /> The State entered into a Settlement Agreement with Mid-Continent <br /> Resources which provided that Resources either sell or reclaim <br /> the site within specified time frames. Resources failed to do <br /> either. As a result, the State forfeited the bond and revoked <br /> the permit as provided for in the Colorado Surface Coal Mining <br /> Reclamation Act, the Colorado Rules and the Agreement. This <br /> conceptual course of action was sanctioned by the Office of <br /> Surface Mining in early 1992. Further, as provided for in State <br /> statute, Colorado has followed appropriate "alternative <br /> enforcement" procedures to obtain sufficient monies to achieve <br /> site reclamation. The record attached to this response bears out <br /> this contention. <br /> -11- <br />