Laserfiche WebLink
by the Division has determined that the private land road associated with the original WEG <br />request for the site visit falls within lands owned by Mountain Coal Company. As such, DRMS <br />believes that the West Elk Mine does have right to enter the area associated with the private land <br />road (delineated as "Old Road" on the proposed PR -15 Map)." Letter from DRMS to WildEarth <br />Guardians (July 6, 2018), attached as Exhibit 7. This allows additional information without <br />ensuring effective public engagement on the ultimate proposal, violating the spirit of the review <br />period. Thus, DRMS's April 5, 2018 completeness finding for Mountain Coal's PR -15 <br />application was premature because the information provided to DRMS was not "accurate and <br />complete" as MLRB Rule 1.4.1(3) requires. As detailed below, because of this, public notice, <br />comment, and the opportunity for site -visit were all commenced prematurely. <br />III. Public Engagement Was Insufficient <br />The inclusion of public engagement is at the heart of statutory and regulatory <br />requirements when dealing with the use of our federal public lands and national forests. DRMS's <br />regulations state that the agency is required to "[p]rovide for broad and effective public <br />participation in the review of applications and the issuance or denial of permits." MLRB Rule <br />2.07.2(1). DRMS violated this requirement when it failed to issue a new public comment period <br />after changes to the initial mining plan and permit revision application rose to the level of <br />significant. Mountain Coal's significant changes from the first permit application to what DRMS <br />approved were such that they should have triggered an additional public engagement period. <br />The significant changes to the application rise to the level of "substantial" under the <br />rules. MLRB Rule 1.6.6. Specifically, these rules require that: <br />If a notice is in error or a change to the application is so substantial, as determined <br />by the Office, that it affects any of the terms contained in the notice that was <br />published in the newspaper or mailed to the owners of the affected and adjacent <br />lands, or the change is an amendment to the application, the Applicant shall be <br />required to publish and mail a new notice of the application. In the event that the <br />Applicant is required to issue a new notice, all applicable deadlines shall begin to <br />run anew. <br />MLRB Rule 1.6.6. Here, the question of right of entry certainly affects the owners of the <br />adjacent lands and requires a new notice. Additionally, we believe that the expanded acreage (a <br />50% increase in the area slated for surface disturbance for roads and methane drilling pads) and <br />the 33% increase in the number of panels meets the definition of a "substantial" change. The <br />significant changes to the mining plan and the premature completeness finding require new <br />notice. Because DRMS's April 5, 2018 completeness finding for Mountain Coal's PR -15 <br />application was premature (as information provided to DRMS was not "accurate and complete" <br />as MLRB Rule 1.4.1(3) requires), and consequently triggered public notice, comment, and the <br />opportunity for a site -visit prematurely, depriving access to information and short-changing the <br />public's ability to participate in the MLRB permit revision process as the rules require. <br />In violation of this requirement, DRMS did not provide for an additional public <br />engagement period, evidencing that DRMS treated its requirement to engage the public as a mere <br />14 <br />