Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to Fred Banta - 2 - J anuary 3, 1991 <br />The second incident involved a question raised by TREND regarding the adequacy <br />of vegetation sampling in the proposed disturbed area. TREND had exhibited <br />photographs which we felt were not representative of the area in question. We <br />submitted an aerial photo as evidence, but on questioning by the Board Berhan <br />was unable to definitely locate the boundaries of the proposed disturbed area <br />depicted on the permit area map. In retrospect, the photo controversy was not <br />even germane to the question of adequacy of the vegetation survey. Our photo <br />was no more conclusive than TREND's photos and we should have simply described <br />the vegetation survey which was performed and stated why it met the <br />requirements of the regulations. <br />Another factor which I think reduced the effectiveness of our presentation was <br />that although Frank, Mike Savage, Berhan and I were all involved in the <br />presentation and we had discussed who would be doing what, our roles were not <br />clearly defined and no one was clearly designated as "running the show". <br />I think we learned from the Rimrock experience and that, with respect to <br />presentation strategy and preparation, our performance was considerably better <br />in the NCEC case (although that case was marred by our failure to send all <br />necessary documents to the Board). <br />With regard to the oversights made during the permit review, I have talked to <br />both Mike and Berhan. These were procedural errors, not technical failings. <br />M1tike Savage has implemented a system of peer review of all findings documents <br />before they are forwarded to the supervisor in order to reduce the possibility <br />of such procedural errors. <br />I think an in-house training program focusing on permitting procedures, <br />clerical and data processing procedures and Board presentation protocol is <br />warranted. Responsibilities of the lead reclamation specialist, "consulting" <br />reclamation specialist, senior, supervisor and director should be defined. <br />The training would be geared toward the newer specialists, but most everyone <br />would probably benefit from a refresher on procedures. Numerous sections of <br />the staff procedures manual are now outdated and should be revised as a part <br />of this program. <br />Based on issues which arose from both this and the NCEC case, I think that in <br />addition to training on the formal hearing process and a revie~a of specific <br />notifications and findings mandated by the regulations, we need to develop <br />written policy to provide guidance and insure consistency in interpreting <br />regulatory provisions which lack specificity or which have been subject to <br />differing interpretations over the years. Issues which come to mind are <br />completeness determinations and our responsibility to insure that complete <br />documents are available at the appropriate public office for citizen review, <br />the extent of life of mine information which applicants should be required to <br />submit, the relationship between our permitting processes and county/local <br />land use approvals, and appropriateness of permit applications, permit <br />revisions, technical revisions and minor revisions for various types of <br />proposed actions. A one or two day "retreat" type meeting held prior to the <br />coming field season might be conducive to discussion of troublesome issues <br />such as these, and would allow people to participate in policy development, <br />and air concerns, uncertainties and frustrations which they might have. <br />cc: Steve Renner <br />2414E/scg <br />