Laserfiche WebLink
including the Natural Resources Conservation Service ( "NRCS "), and resulted in substantial <br />revisions to the original PR -6 submittal to ensure compliance with the Colorado Surface Coal <br />Mining Regulation Act, §§ 34 -33 -102 through 137' ( "Act "), and the Regulations of the Colorado <br />Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining, 2 C.C.R. 407 -2 ( "Rules "). PR -6 contains <br />critical administrative findings and Permit requirements related to prime farmland designations, <br />irrigation, post- mining land use, and topsoil resource management. Based on its expertise with <br />mining and reclamation, the Division determined that PR -6 satisfies the rigorous requirements of <br />the Act and Rules and issued its proposed decision to approve PR -6 on October 1, 2010. <br />The Plaintiffs requested a formal hearing before the Board regarding the Division's <br />proposed approval. As the party requesting review, the Plaintiffs had the burden to prove that <br />the Division's proposed approval was not proper. § 34 -33- 119(5); see also § 24 -4- 105(7). <br />However, the Plaintiffs failed to submit scientific data or other technical evidence during the <br />Board's de novo hearing that supported their assertion that the Division's proposed approval of <br />PR -6 was improper. Instead, and much like the present appeal, Plaintiffs improperly attempted <br />to interject issues wholly outside of the Division's proposed approval of PR -6 into the hearing. <br />Plaintiffs asked the Board to reconsider previous permitting decisions, even though the deadline <br />to seek review of those decisions had long since passed. In addition, Plaintiffs asked the Board <br />to find WFC in violation for the removal of prime farmland soils prior to 2008, even though the <br />hearing was not an enforcement hearing, thus that remedy was improper. <br />Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory citations are to the Colorado Revised Statutes (2012). <br />2 <br />