GENERAL49242 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J Page 2 July 1, 1993 - The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board Rules for Coal Mining define post mining land uses for Pastureland and Rangeland. The Hearing record shows that the permittee continues to meet the definition of rangeland, for which they were previously approved, but did not demonstrate that the proposed post mining land-use definition of Pastureland had been met. Thus, the proposed permit amendment was not approvable, and the Minerals and Geology decision should have been affirmed. - At the hearing, the permittee contended that wildlife habitat was not contemplated as part of the post mining land-use. This is contrary to the approved permit commitments, and to those made in the Permit Revision application. The hearing was noticed as a request to reverse the Minerals and Geology denial decision. Under the Coal statute and the Boards rules, only the factual information submitted as part of the permit application may be presented by the permittee at the hearing. Introduction of a new post mining land-use concept at a reversal hearing is unfair to the public, who has been denied the opportunity to comment on such a change, and to State government which has the obligation to review permit changes of this magnitude. The Board must consider the request to overturn Minerals and Geology based upon the permit application materials submitted by the applicant during the permit review process. - The Mined Land Reclamation Board Rules for Coal Mining at 4.16.3 (5) require that approval of both the Colorado Division of Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife be obtained if Minerals and Geology determines that adverse impacts to wildlife and related environmental values would result from an alternative post mining land-use proposal. Minerals and Geology found that such impacts would occur. Wildlife and USFWS were consulted, but could not approve of the revision as mitigative measures required by the Coal Rules had not been proposed by the permittee. At the hearing, Wildlife explained why adverse impacts could be expected, and why the application was deficient in its mitigation plan. The Board rejected the testimony of Wildlife, but did not make a finding reversing the Minerals and Geology determination that adverse impacts to wildlife would occur. Absent this finding, [he record indicated ihai adverse i.-npact~ to v~ildlife and related values will occur, and that the Board ignored its Rules by not requiring the mitigation plan described in Rule 4.16.3. Thus, the Board's decision to reverse Minerals and Geology was defective. - The Board erred procedurally when calling the question after the motion to reverse the Minerals and Geology decision. The record shows that a motion to reverse had been made and seconded. Discussion of the motion was occurring. A Board member "called the question", and the motion to reverse was immediately voted on. This method of bringing the motion to a vote is procedurally incorrect, and possibly preempted further Board discussion and deliberation of this issue. A motion to call the question must be approved by two thirds of the Board, assuming that the Board adheres to Roberts Rules of Order. If the Board does not follow that procedure, a simple majority vote is