INFORMATION NETWORK FOR RESPONSIBLE MINING, Earthworks, and Sheep Mountain Alliance, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.
City
and County of Denver District Court No. 17CV33475, Honorable
Michael A. Martinez, Judge
Travis
Stills, Durango, Colorado; Roger Flynn, Jeffrey C. Parsons,
Lyons, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Philip
J. Weiser, Attorney General, Charles J. Kooyman, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for
Defendant-Appellee
OPINION
TOW,
JUDGE.
Page 1246
[¶
1] Information Network for Responsible Mining,
Earthworks, and Sheep Mountain Alliance (collectively, the
objectors) appeal the district courts judgment, affirming
the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (the Board) order
granting the request of Piñon Ridge Mining, LLC for
approval of a second period of temporary
cessation.[1] We reverse.
I.
Background
[¶
2] In November 1999, Piñon Ridge Mining was
issued a permit for a uranium mining operation known as the
Van 4 Shaft (the site), releasing the companys predecessor
from its permit. The site last produced ore in 1989. In March
2014, the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety (the
Division) approved an initial period of temporary cessation
for the site, with an effective date of June 13, 2012.
[¶
3] In May 2017, the Division received a request for
approval of a second period of temporary cessation for the
site. The objectors filed objections to this request. The
Board held a hearing on the matter. During the hearing, a
representative of Piñon Ridge Mining testified that
minerals had not been extracted since it had taken over the
site because the depressed market price of uranium made
production unprofitable. The representative also testified
that the operator had explored one other avenue for
extraction.
[¶
4] The Board ultimately granted the request for
approval of a second period of temporary cessation. The
district court affirmed the Boards order. The objectors now
appeal the Boards decision.
II.
Analysis
[¶
5] The objectors assert that the district court
erred in affirming the Boards order, which, the objectors
argue, ignored the plain language of the Colorado Mined Land
Reclamation Act (MLRA) when approving a second period of
temporary cessation. We agree.
A.
Standard of Review
[¶
6] The Board is a state agency governed by the State
Administrative Procedure Act, sections 24-4-101 to -108,
C.R.S. 2018. In reviewing the Boards actions, we stand in
the same position as the district court. See
Haney v. Colo. Dept of Revenue, 2015 COA 125, ¶ 14,
361 P.3d 1093. We must set aside an agency action that is
(I) Arbitrary or capricious;
(II) A denial of statutory right;
(III) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or
immunity;
(IV) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority,
purposes, or limitations;
(V) Not in accord with the procedures or procedural
limitations of this article 4 or as otherwise ...