Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Stover further testified about the proposed plan to repair the historic air shaft, <br />to include: (a) stripping and stockpiling the topsoil; (b) excavating from the <br />subsurface hole to the historic air shaft to a depth of sixteen feet; (c) pouring a <br />concrete slab twelve inches thick and eight to ten feet in diameter; (d) backfilling <br />and compacting the soil in six-inch lifts; (e) replacing the topsoil; and (e) reseeding <br />the area with cheatgrass. The hydrologic communication repair plan is estimated to <br />affect 0.4 acres and to cost $34,470. <br />27. The Division testified at the hearing, stating that the permitted post - <br />mining surface land use at the site is industrial/commercial and fish and wildlife <br />habitat, and that the surface is not cropland or renewable resource lands under Rule <br />1.04 of the Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining, <br />2 CCR 407-2 ("Rules"). The Division testified that the hydrologic communication repair <br />plan and reclamation plan comply with the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation <br />Act ("Act") and Rules to solve the very- specific issue of TR -69. <br />28. Objector Fontanari, through counsel, argued that the ERT study was <br />performed improperly and should have included flooding the eastern edge of the <br />property for three weeks. Objector Fontanari did not provide lay witness or expert <br />witness testimony at the hearing. <br />29. Objector Carey testified at the hearing, stating that the bottom of the <br />pond located on his property, known as the Carey Pond, is lower in elevation than <br />the hydrologic communication repair. Objector Carey further testified that he does <br />not know the volume of water the Carey Pond holds, has no knowledge of how the <br />mine affects the pond drainage, did not perform hydrologic tests, and does not know <br />where water leaving the pond goes. Objector Carey further testified that there has <br />been no sustainable crop on his property within the past ten years. <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />30. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Act. <br />Sections 34-33-104. 34-33-105 and 34-33-106, C.R.S, specifically provide the Board <br />with jurisdiction over this matter. <br />31. The Division and Board have the full power and authority to carry out <br />and administer the provisions of this article. C.R.S. § 34-33-104. <br />32. The Division and Board shall have jurisdiction and authority over all <br />persons and property, public and private, necessary- to enforce the provisions of this <br />article. C.R.S. § 34-33-105. <br />Snowcap Coal Company-, Inc. <br />Roadside Portals Mine / C-1981-041 5 <br />