My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-03-22_REVISION - C1981008 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2013-03-22_REVISION - C1981008 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:18:46 PM
Creation date
2/20/2014 7:54:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/22/2013
Doc Name
Joint Answer Brief of Defendents Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board & DRMS 2010 CV548
From
DRMS
To
District Court, Montrose County Colorado
Type & Sequence
PR6
Email Name
DAB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The Plaintiffs have not and cannot demonstrate that the exclusion of the evidence is <br />manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. Moreover, the Plaintiffs' statement that the letters <br />were not timely exchanged due to an "unforeseen circumstance" is disingenuous. Opening Brief, <br />pp. 25 -26. At the November 17, 2010 hearing and in their Brief, Plaintiffs failed entirely to <br />explain why submitting a request that NRCS make a detailed scientific determination, hosting a <br />site - inspection with NRCS, obtaining two letters from NRCS regarding the inspection, and <br />submitting the letters to the Division —which all were accomplished in a single day on <br />November 16, 2010 —mould not occur in the two years preceding the hearing. 18 Plaintiffs <br />reviewed the numerous reports and determinations made by WFC's consultants and NRCS <br />related to soil reclamation and re- vegetation standards. Yet Plaintiffs, on the eve of the hearing, <br />sought an additional determination from NRCS. The "new" NRCS determination was <br />particularly prejudicial to the Division because, according to Ms. Turner, the letters concluded <br />the proposed Bench 1 subsoil was not suitable for reclamation. R: 7377. However, the Board <br />was informed that the very NRCS scientist authoring one of the last - minute letters - -Jim Boyd— <br />confirmed NRCS's approval of PR -6 stating, "I have reviewed the soil reclamation and re- <br />vegetation practices listed in the revised sections of PR -6 (as of October 2010)" and "I am in full <br />support of the practices listed in their detail. "19 R: 6359; 7408 -7410. The Division and WFC <br />correctly relied upon the October 2010 NRCS letter during the technical review of PR -6. <br />18 At Ms. Turner's request, the Board extended exhibit exchange deadline to November 10, <br />2010. R: 8467. <br />19 During deliberations Board member Randall stated: "I am moved by the October letter from <br />NRCS considering soil reclamation and re- vegetation practices in the plans and finding that their <br />concerns are met ", R: 7423, indicating additional weight given to the original October letter from <br />29 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.