Laserfiche WebLink
hydrology, soil science, geochemistry, and civil engineering. See generally §§ 34 -33 -110 & 115. <br />The Division is a technical agency and its qualified experts scrutinize all facets of a coal permit <br />application or revision to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Act and Rules. Id. <br />The Division exercised its authority in this proceeding by conducting a thorough, technical <br />review of PR -6 that spanned 12 months. Only after WFC substantively amended portions of the <br />permit revision in response to the Division's detailed technical review did the Division propose <br />to approve PR -6. <br />IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS <br />Plaintiffs requested judicial review of the Board's decision to affirm approval of PR -6 <br />pursuant to §§ 34 -33- 119(9) and 34 -33 -128. The Board Order was the final action in a <br />complicated administrative proceeding necessary to correct a factual error in the Permit. The <br />following factual discussion is historical and is not relevant to PR -6 and the hearing, except <br />insofar as it provides useful background information. A discussion of the relevant administrative <br />proceedings follows. <br />A. Factual Background <br />1. Permit and Mining History on the Morgan Property. <br />The 108 -acres owned by Plaintiffs Frank Morgan and Mary Lou Morgan ( "Morgan <br />Property") were included in the Permit boundary in 2000 when the Division approved PR -5.2 <br />R: 7809 -789. PR -5 did not designate any of the Morgan Property as prime farmland. Id. Years <br />prior, the Morgan's purchased sideroll irrigation in 1996 and later upgraded the western portion <br />2 The Plaintiffs did not object to the Division's approval of PR -5. <br />5 <br />