Laserfiche WebLink
opportunity to cure their failure to ensure access during the late June site visit. Because <br />Conservation Groups were denied the right to access to these lands during the site visit, <br />Conservation Groups were similarly deprived of necessary on -the -ground information about the <br />condition of these existing roads and the feasibility of using them to decrease impacts to comply <br />with DRMS's requirement to "minimize disturbances and adverse impacts of the operations on <br />fish, wildlife, and related environmental values". MLRB Rule 4.18(1). DRMS's failure to ensure <br />that Conservation Groups would have access to these private lands that were "necessary for the <br />gathering of information relevant to the conference," required DRMS to ensure access. <br />Conservation Groups have urged DRMS to provide for another opportunity for an informal <br />conference following a regulation -compliant site visit. MLRB Rule 2.07.3(6)(b)(iii). DRMS did <br />not, and approved the permit revision, in violation of this requirement. <br />In sum, DRMS's actions violated the plain meaning of the law by prohibiting <br />Conservation Groups from accessing private land. Mountain Coal and DRMS's restriction goes <br />against the fundamental fairness that the statutory language requires and is facially unfair where <br />the law obligated public access. This access is especially crucial so the public may understand <br />DRMS' possible decisions; lack of access make it impossible for the public to weigh-in <br />sufficiently. <br />II. DRMS's Completeness Finding Was Premature Because Mountain Coal <br />Significantly Changed Their Plans After Submitting Their Application. <br />The applicant bears the burden of providing evidence that the application is complete and <br />accurate. MLRB Rule 1.4.1(3). Additionally, permit applications "shall contain [] a description <br />of the documents upon which the applicant bases his or her legal right to enter and begin surface <br />coal mining operations in the permit area[.]" MLRB Rule 2.03.6(1). <br />A. Mountain Coal Significantly Changed its Plans Over Time <br />State regulations require applications to include "detailed" information regarding the <br />location of roads and support facilities, including methane drainage wells for proposals, <br />including permit revisions. MLRB Rule 2.05.3. Based on our site visit and on DRMS's <br />statements during our visit, Mountain Coal did not provide "detailed" information regarding the <br />location of roads and methane drainage wells to provide a sufficient level of detail to comply <br />with MLRB Rule 2.05.3. Applicants are required to provide sufficient information to allow both <br />public comment and also information for DRMS to ensure a well -thought decision. <br />Mountain Coal submitted information to DRMS that was incomplete and had changed <br />significantly since its first application submission. Specifically, WildEarth Guardians noted in <br />our June 25, 2018 letter to DRMS Coal Program Director Jim Stark that Mountain Coal's permit <br />application was lacking crucial details as it related to the location of access roads and the <br />location of the methane drainage well that would be utilized as a part of the PR -15 revision.10 As <br />' ° See Exhibit 2 (stating: "Although Mountain Coal did provide a map showing the potential location of access roads <br />and methane drainage wells pads, DBMS staff indicated these locations are very likely to change in response <br />information gathered by Mountain Coal via recent coal exploration activities. Accordingly, Mountain Coal's is <br />7 <br />