REP03444 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A ,. Mr. Dean Massey -2- February 7, 1984 The regulations (Rules 2.05.6(6) and 4.20) expand on this concept by recognizing that subsidence, regardless of the mine plan predictions, may occur. The regulations then extensively address the the operator's obligations 1n the event that the subsidence prediction 1s inaccurate and subsidence occurs. The regulations go on to describe and define what material subsidence damage means and what steps are necessary to be taken to mitigate the effects of material damage. In this particular case, it is apparent that material damage, as defined, would occur 1f subsidence takes place. In the event that material damage occurs, the operator is required to mitigate the effects through several options. These include restoration or rehabilitation of structures, replacement of structures, the purchase of structures, and the purchase of non-cancellable policies payable to the surface owner 1n the full amount 1n the event that subsidence causes material damage. There is no provision in the regulations which allows material damage to a structure without taking mitigation steps even if the owner does not want the protection. At this time, it appears to be Dorchester's contention that the Cribbs lease 15, in effect, a request for a waiver from the protection provided by the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act. The lease agreement does not address the Coal Act and we cannot accept the lease as a basis for a waiver with respect to the Act. However, we would consider a statement from the landowner expressly addressing his right to protection, or waiving that right, of the specific structure (the Thompson Ranch) under the Act. In making a decision to accept or reject the request from the landowner, the Division will closely examine whether there is a public Interest that needs to be protected related to the request. Therefore, 1t 15 necessary for Dorchester Coal Company to discuss this with the landowner, and either Dorchester or the landowner approach the Division with respect to this issue. In summary, I can suggest three alternatives for Dorchester to consider in resolving this issue. First, Dorchester can submit an explicit waiver of surface support from the landowner for the Division to consider. Second, Dorchester can present a legal basis on which the lease agreement would supercede the Act, and third, Dorchester could agree to limited extraction under the Thompson Ranch.