Laserfiche WebLink
Report attached to the Notice of a Reason to Believe Letter and in an Adequacy Review" of the <br />EPP. See AR:00338, 00347. The Board Order failed to address this material issue raised by <br />Cotter, contrary to the Colorado APA, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24- 4- 105(14)(a), and its own <br />Rule 2.8.2(3) (requiring a written order to include a statement of findings and conclusions upon <br />all of the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented by the record). 2 Colo. Code Regs. <br />407 -1, Rule 2.8.2(3). <br />The Defendants argue that Mine Dewatering and Treatment qualified for a technical <br />revision because no current Environmental Protection Plan existed. See Answer Brief at 45, <br />n.14. This argument ignores that part of the definition of a Technical Revision covering "a <br />change in the permit or an application, which does not have more than a minor effect upon the <br />approved or proposed Reclamation or Environmental Protection Plan." 2 Colo. Code Regs. 407- <br />1, Rule 1.1(52) (emphasis added). A proposed EPP was certainly in existence. See AR:00024- <br />00249. <br />The Defendants' argument that "there is no significant effect on a current EPP" is refuted <br />by statements in their own Answer Brief. As the Defendants themselves concede, the Division <br />recognized the technical challenges in dewatering the mine. See Answer Brief at 52, 53, and 54. <br />Moreover, as the Division also recognized, Cotter submitted substantial evidence objecting to <br />Mine Dewatering and Treatment. Certainly, if the effect on the EPP would have been "minor," <br />Cotter would not have objected so vigorously and filed an appeal focused on this Corrective <br />Action. <br />11 The Defendants mistakenly cite the Adequacy Review as the Inspection Report. See <br />Answer Brief at 12 (citing AR:00346 -52 as the Inspection Report). The Inspection Report is at <br />AR:00336 -45. <br />30 <br />