Laserfiche WebLink
• That MLRB require SCC to pay Fontanari's attorney's costs incurred in proposing the <br />Fontanari Plan; and <br />• That SCC, and its consultants, be removed from the reclamation process under the <br />Permit. <br />The MLRB has no statutory authority to grant any part of the Fontanari Plan in this <br />proceeding. Any such action by the MLRB, given the structure of the SL -8 Proposed Decision, <br />MR -82, and the evidence to be presented at the Formal Hearing, would be arbitrary, capricious, <br />and an abuse of discretion. <br />As a preliminary matter, the Formal Hearing only concerns a technical revision to the <br />Permit pursuant to C.R.S. § 34-33-116 and 2 CCR 407-2-2.08.4(2). The Fontanari Plan would <br />constitute significant alterations of the reclamation operations described in the Permit and <br />therefore would be a Permit Revision. See C.R.S. § 34-33-103(19). Permit Revisions may only <br />be accomplished pursuant to C.R.S. § 34-33-115, and in accordance with the notice and hearing <br />requirements set forth in C.R.S. §§ 34-33-118 and 119. Section 34-33-115, C.R.S., does not <br />permit an objecting landowner, like Fontanari or Carey, to propose or otherwise demand permit <br />revisions. Rather, the only two parties that may propose permit revisions are the permittee or the <br />office of mined land reclamation created pursuant to C.R.S. § 34-32-105 ("the Office"). See 2 <br />CCR 407-2-2.08.3 and 2.08.4. The Office is a separate body from the MLRB. See C.R.S. § 34- <br />32-105(1); see also Cold Springs Ranch v. Dept. of Nat. Res., 765 P.2d 1035 (Colo. App. 1988). <br />Neither the permittee nor the Office have proposed a permit revision, and none of the procedural <br />requirements for the revision of a permit have been satisfied. See C.R.S. §§ 34-33-118 and 119; <br />2 CCR 407-2-2.07 and 2.08.4(5) and (6). The MLRB may not entertain the Fontanari Plan. <br />Second, subsidence issues are also not a subject for the Formal Hearing before the <br />MLRB, and no action has been taken by either DRMS or the Office under C.R.S. § 34-33-121, 2 <br />CCR 407-2-2.05.6(6) or 4.20 concerning SCC's obligations to address the surface effects of <br />underground coal mining alleged by Fontanari. Tract #71 does not have any regulated structures <br />that were damaged and it is not a renewable resource. <br />Third, Fontanari's demand that money be extracted from SCC, in the form of conversion <br />of bond funds and additional funds, by the MLRB and placed in a "trust" for the purpose of <br />completing the Fontanari Plan is also beyond the MLRB's authority. The performance bond for <br />the Permit may be in any of the forms allowed by C.R.S. § 34-33-113, and the amounts of the <br />bond may only be adjusted by the "Office" as provided by C.R.S. § 34-33-113(5) and 2 CCR <br />407-2-3.02.2(4). Forfeiture, which is what Fontanari is proposing, may only occur under the <br />provisions of C.R.S. § 34-33-124(4) and 2 CCR 407-2-3.04. None of the statutory or procedural <br />requirements to alter the bond provisions have been met. Moreover, there is absolutely no <br />statutory authority for the MLRB to establish a "trust" in the form proposed by Fontanari. <br />Fontanari's request for attorney's fees and costs is also without basis, as C.R.S. § 34-33- <br />135(6), cited by Fontanari in the Fontanari Comments to Repair Plan and Submission of the <br />Fontanari Plan is applicable only to civil actions for violation of rules, regulations, permits or <br />I <br />