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
TABLE OF CONTENTS <br />PAGE <br />Farmlands Reclamation Plans Approved in PR- 6 ..................... ............................... 19 <br />a. Topsoil Management: Soil Suitability Findings .............. ............................... 20 <br />b. Prime Farmlands Standards .......................................... ............................... 22 <br />c. Conclusion ................................................................. ............................... 24 <br />C. The November 17, 2010 Hearing was an Appeal of an Approval of a Permit <br />Revision Application, Not an Enforcement Hearing ................... ............................... 24 <br />1. Plaintiffs Theory of "Automatic Violations" under the Act is both Incorrect and <br />Contrary to the Act and Rules ................................................. ............................... 25 <br />2. Plaintiffs Failed to Raise this Legal Argument at the Administrative Hearing and <br />are, Therefore, Precluded From Raising it for the First Time on Appeal .................... 26 <br />D. The Board Properly Excluded the November 16, 2010 NRCS Letters ......................... 27 <br />1. The Act and APA Grant the Board Great Discretion to Acceptor Exclude <br />Evidence in a Formal Administrative Hearin ........................... ............................... 27 <br />2. Plaintiffs' Dilatory Request for the NRCS Determination is Not An "Unforeseen <br />Circumstance" ...................................................................... ............................... 28 <br />E. Plaintiffs' Attempt to Expand the Scope of this Court's Review to Include <br />Documents that Post -Date the November 17, 2010 Hearing is Improper, and <br />Unsupported by the Act and Case Law ..................................... ............................... 30 <br />F. Objection to Request for Oral Argument ................................... ............................... 32 <br />G. Request for Attorney Fees and Objection to Plaintiffs' Request for Attorney Fees ....... 32 <br />VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................ ............................... 33 <br />ii <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.