Laserfiche WebLink
required DRMS and the Board to consult with other agencies to ensure the protection of "fish, <br />wildlife, historic, cultural and archeological resources, and related environmental values." <br />MLRB Rule 1.03.1(h). Here, Mountain Coal made significant changes and yet DRMS failed to <br />consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife ("FWS"), as required.12 DRMS' approval without <br />consultation flies in the face of state regulations that specifically safeguard wildlife and natural <br />values of the area. <br />In sum, based on the significant changes, Mountain Coal's application has so <br />substantially changed, its initial description of lands and details no longer match the current <br />description, violating 2.03.6(1). Mountain Coal rushed its application, and DRMS shirked its <br />responsibility to wait until it received a complete application to proceed. As a result, Mountain <br />Coal's application has been a moving target, making it nearly impossible for Conservation <br />Groups and the public to understand this proposal and how to provide meaningful input. DRMS, <br />by law, should have waited until Mountain Coal could provide the necessary information to <br />allow for meaningful understanding and input from the public. As such, Conservation Groups <br />request that the approval be set aside. <br />B. Mountain Coal Failed to Provide Documents Related to a Legal Right to Enter <br />The Applicant has the burden of demonstrating that the application meets the minimum <br />requirements of the law. State regulations require an application to provide information to <br />DRMS that is "accurate and complete". MLRB Rule 1.4.1(3). Necessary information includes <br />descriptions of lands to be impacted, permit boundaries, and evidence demonstrating a legal right <br />of entry to the land. Id. Here, Mountain Coal submitted information to DRMS that was <br />incomplete, and has since changed significantly since its first application submission. Under such <br />circumstances, DRMS should have issued a finding of incompleteness. <br />Additionally, MLRB Rule 2.03.3(9) requires that "a responsible official of the applicant <br />[] certify that the information contained in the application is true and correct to the best of the <br />official's information and belief." Here, it does appear as if Mountain Coal falsely certified that <br />it had the right to enter private lands for purposes of conducting surface coal mining activities <br />associated with the PR -15 revision, further underscoring the need for DRMS to have rejected the <br />application as incomplete, or at the minimum, pause the process and extend the public <br />engagement period until right of entry was obtained. Mountain Coal's submitted application did <br />not detail its right of entry information. <br />At the time of the application and subsequent site inspection, Mountain Coal failed to <br />provide any documents upon which the company could base any legal right to enter and conduct <br />surface coal mining operations on private lands that would be accessed for purposes of the PR -15 <br />revision, as required for permit approval under the regulations. Mountain Coal's failure to <br />provide the legal right to enter was only disclosed to Conservation Groups (and DRMS, <br />purportedly, to the surprise of DRMS) upon closer inspection at the June 21 and June 22, 2018 <br />site visit. Mountain Coal's right of entry to the private lands was only clarified after the period <br />for public engagement had ended and the requested site -visit had concluded, stating, "[a] review <br />12 Specifically Mountain Coal's changes to the permit area now meet the 75 -acre threshold that FWS used for <br />analyzing impacts to Canada lynx. <br />13 <br />