Laserfiche WebLink
4. Under the Act and the Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for <br />Coal Mining ( "Rules "), promulgated by the Board to implement the Act, the separate roles and <br />decision making authority of the Board and Division are clearly identified. Once a permit <br />revision application is filed and properly noticed, any person having an interest which is or may <br />be adversely affected by a decision by the Division has the right to submit written comments and <br />request that an informal conference be held by the Division. C.R.S. §34- 33- 118(5) and (6); 2 <br />CCR 407 -2 Rule 2.07.3(5) and (6). Upon the conclusion of the public comment periods, the <br />Division issues a proposed decision to approve or deny the permit revision application. C.R.S. <br />§34- 33- 119(1); 2 CCR 407 -2 Rule 2.07.4(2)(a). Any person with an interest who may be <br />adversely affected by the Division's proposed decision may request a formal hearing before the <br />Board to review the proposed decision, essentially appealing the Division's proposed decision to <br />the Board. C.R.S. §34 -33- 119(4); 2 CCR 407 -2 Rule 2.07.04(3)(a). After holding a formal <br />hearing, the Board, not the Division, issues a final decision affirming, reversing, or modifying <br />the proposed decision of the Division. C.R.S. §34- 33- 119(5); 2 CCR 407 -2 Rule 2.07.04(3)(b). <br />The Division's proposed decision only becomes final if no formal hearing is requested. C.R.S. <br />§34- 33- 119(6); 2 CCR 407 -2 Rule 2.07.04(3)(c). <br />5. In the PR -6 permit revision matter, the Plaintiffs were actively involved throughout the <br />entire public process that commenced in December 2009. Plaintiffs submitted numerous and <br />lengthy comment letters during the public comment periods and the Division held an informal <br />conference in Nucla, Colorado on February 18, 2010. The Division issued its proposed decision <br />to approve PR -6 on October 1, 2010. On October 21, 2010, pursuant to C.R.S. §34 -33- 119(4) <br />and Rule 2.07.04(3)(a), Plaintiffs requested that a formal Board hearing be held to review the <br />Division's proposed decision. This request for hearing was an administrative appeal to the <br />Board of the Division's proposed decision, meaning that the Division actions regarding PR -6 <br />were not final and, therefore, could not be subject to judicial review. At the formal hearing the <br />Board approved PR -6. The Board's action constitutes the final agency action in this matter for <br />purposes of judicial review, not the Division's proposed decision. Accordingly, the Division <br />should be dismissed as a party. <br />6. According to the Plaintiffs' own complaint, the Board is the actual party against whom <br />Plaintiffs seek relief. In the introduction paragraph of the complaint Plaintiffs state their intent is <br />