Laserfiche WebLink
C. Conclusion <br />The Board received technical evidence that the topsoil management and prime farmland <br />reclamation plans are fully compliant with the "voluminous requirements" of the Act and Rules. <br />R: 8481; Order, p. 7. After reviewing written evidence and considering testimonial evidence, the <br />Board found: <br />Overall, the topsoil redistribution, soil suitability, and topsoil <br />reconditioning described in PR -6 will conform (and in some cases <br />go beyond) what the Act and Rules require ... The soil <br />management practices required for prime farmlands are included in <br />PR -6 and fulfill the statutory requirements ... PR -6 meets the <br />regulatory requirements for prime farmlands. R: 8479 - 848481; <br />Order, pp. 5 -9. <br />The Board's decision concerning topsoil management and prime farmland reclamation in PR -6 is <br />not arbitrary nor capricious as it is supported by substantial evidence based upon the whole <br />record, and should be upheld. <br />C. The November 17, 2010 Hearing was an Appeal of an Approval of a Permit <br />Revision Application, Not an Enforcement Hearing <br />Plaintiffs mischaracterize the nature of the November 17, 2010 administrative hearing. <br />Opening Brief, pp. 13, 20 -23. It was an appeal of the Division's proposed approval of a permit <br />revision, not an enforcement hearing. It was noticed on the Board's November 2010 agenda and <br />in the San Miguel Basin Forum as a hearing for "consideration of a citizen's objection to the <br />Division's proposed approval of PR -6." R: 8473. Moreover, the Division made a specific <br />finding in its October 2010 proposed decision document that WFC "does not own or control any <br />operations which are currently in violation of any law, rule, or regulation of the United States, or <br />any State law, rule, or regulation, or any provision of the Surface Mining Control and <br />PZ1 <br />