Laserfiche WebLink
orders issued under the Coal Mining Act. Moreover, the only part of the Coal Mining Act <br />authorizing an award of fees and costs by the MLRB is C.R.S. § 34-33-124(5), addressing the <br />MLRB's review of notices of violation or cessation orders, neither of which are before the <br />MLRB. <br />E. The MLRB is Without Authority to Address Carey's Allegations Concerning a <br />"Refuse Pile." <br />Carey's objections include concerns about a "refuse pile" allegedly left on his property. <br />This is irrelevant to whether TR -69 should be approved. Further, the evidence at the Formal <br />Hearing will demonstrate that the location of the "refuse pile" is on lands that have been released <br />from reclamation obligations and therefore SCC has no obligations under the Permit with respect <br />to those lands. <br />F. DRMS Did Not Commit Due Process Errors <br />Fontanari asserts that DRMS had an obligation to send a letter to Ute Water Conservancy <br />District in addition to publication of its proposed decision on TR -69, and that its failure to do so <br />created due process errors. C.R.S. 34-33-116(5) only requires that copy of proposed decision be <br />provided to permittee and published once in newspaper of general circulation. The evidence at <br />the Formal Hearing will demonstrate that DRMS and SCC have complied with all statutory <br />notice requirements. Moreover, Ute Water Conservancy District has not sought to intervene or <br />otherwise asserted any prejudice. <br />G. DRMS's Proposed Decision on TR -69 was Legally Sufficient <br />Fontanari asserts that the Proposed Decision on TR -69 is legally deficient, based on <br />citations to the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act, C.R.S. § 24-4-101, et seq. (the "APA") <br />However, Fontanari apparently fails to understand that the procedure before DRMS, and its <br />issuance of a Proposed Decision, does not constitute a "decision" or an "order" under the APA, <br />because, by definition, it does not constitute the determinative action in the adjudicative process, <br />nor is it the final determination or disposition of the agency, rather it was a "proposed" decision <br />from the agency staff. See C.R.S. § 24-4-102(5) and (10). The final determination and <br />disposition of the agency on a technical revision is reserved to the expedited MLRB hearing <br />under C.R.S. § 34-33-116. Therefore, no "opinion" setting forth a statement of reasons, findings <br />of fact, and conclusions of law was necessary to explain an "order." <br />III. CONCLUSION <br />Based on the foregoing, the evidence to be presented at the Formal Hearing will <br />demonstrate that TR -69 is appropriate, is supported by competent geotechnical analysis and <br />engineering, and satisfies the first 5 of the 7 total commitments contained in MR -82. The <br />remaining commitments from MR -82 require that TR -69 be approved so that SCC can then <br />complete the required repair and reclamation of the known hydrologic communication identified <br />in the Boulay Report. <br />10 <br />