Laserfiche WebLink
Rationale for Proposed Decision to Approve TR -69 <br />April 6, 2017 <br />Page 9 of 9 <br />well as the area of subsidence on the Carey Property. This issue was previously discussed <br />in Carey's Response of October 27, 2016 to SCC's proposed plan. <br />The Division believes that the repair plan submitted by SCC will mitigate the hydrologic communication <br />in the area where it was observed. The lands in question are not a renewable resource as defined by the <br />Rules. As such, Pursuant to Rules 2.05.6(6) and 4.20, mine operators are not required to mitigate any <br />subsidence damage. The additional issues raised in this comment are not directly related to the proposed <br />SCC repair plan and are outside the scope of TR -69. <br />23. The February 16, 2017, Beckwith objection letter requested that the matter be heard before an <br />ALJ, pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-4-105. <br />This issue was discussed at the March 22, 2017, Board hearing. It was decided by all parties that an <br />ALJ was not appropriate and that the Mined Land Reclamation Board was the appropriate body to hear <br />this matter. <br />Conclusion <br />The hearing to be held before the MLRB is limited in scope to Technical Revision 69 and, specifically, <br />the hydrologic communication repair plan proposed by SCC. The Division believes that the Snowcap <br />Coal Company has met all of the requirements of the Act and Rules with regards to Technical Revision <br />69 and the plan will stop the hydrologic communication in the area it was observed in 2014. The <br />Division requests that the MLRB approve their Proposed Decision to approve SCC's proposed <br />hydrologic communication repair plan contained within TR -69 <br />