Laserfiche WebLink
The Board appropriately limited the scope of the hearing to the salient issue: should PR -6 <br />be approved. Based upon the extensive record made during the adjudicatory hearing, the Board <br />found that PR -6 was supported by sufficient technical evidence to ensure compliance with the <br />Act and Rules and issued its Order affirming the Division's proposed approval of PR -6. <br />Substantial evidence from the administrative record before the Board —when considered as a <br />whole— supports the Board's decision. Therefore, this Court should affirm the Board's Order <br />and reject Plaintiffs' requested relief. <br />III. OVERVIEW OF COAL MINING REGULATION IN COLORADO, THE BOARD, <br />AND THE DIVISION <br />A. The Board and Division Have Exclusive Regulatory Authority <br />OverCoal Mining in Colorado <br />The Federal Surface Mining Control Reclamation Act's, 30 U.S.C. §§ 1201 -1328 <br />( "SMCRA "), regulatory framework allows a state to assume sole responsibility to regulate coal <br />mining within the state if the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ( "OSM ") <br />approves the state's program. Bragg v. W Va. Coal Assn, 248 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2001). Upon <br />approval, the state has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction —or "primacy " — for the permitting and <br />enforcement of surface coal mining operations within its borders. 30 U.S.C. §§ 1253(a) & <br />1254(a); see generally Bragg, 248 F.3d at 289. A primacy state's approved program <br />incorporates SMCRA's minimum standards while addressing the state's "diversity in terrain, <br />climate, biologic, chemical, and other physical conditions in areas subject to mining operations." <br />30 U.S.C. §§ 1201(f) & 1254(a). Although there is federal oversight, SMCRA is mutually <br />exclusive in that "either federal law or state law regulates coal mining activity in a state, but not <br />both simultaneously." Bragg, 248 F.3d at 293 -294. <br />3 <br />