My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-06-09_REVISION - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2011-06-09_REVISION - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:34:21 PM
Creation date
2/20/2014 8:04:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/9/2011
Doc Name
Answer of the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 2010 CV 548
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.
/
5
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
information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 11 of the Appeal and, <br />therefore, denies the same. <br />12. The Division admits that, on November 17, 2010, the Board unanimously <br />approved PR -6. The Division believes that Plaintiffs have been provided a copy of the Order <br />as of the date of this Answer. <br />13. The Division admits that the Appeal was timely filed, as required by section <br />34 -33 -128, C.R.S. The remaining allegations in paragraph 13 of the Appeal are vague and, <br />therefore, the Division denies the same. <br />14. Paragraph 14 of the Appeal attempts to describe the contents of PR -6. The <br />Division states that PR -6 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of what it provides. <br />15. Paragraph 15 of the Appeal attempts to describe the contents of PR -6. The <br />Division states that PR -6 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of what it provides. <br />16. The Division has insufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in <br />paragraph 16 of the Appeal and, therefore, denies the same. <br />17. Paragraph 17 of the Appeal attempts to describe the contents of PR -6. The <br />Division states that PR -6 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of what it provides. <br />18. The Division denies paragraph 18 of the Appeal and all subparts thereof. <br />19. The Appeal does not contain a paragraph numbered 19. <br />20. The Division admits the allegation asserted in subparagraph (d) of paragraph <br />20 to the extent that the Board denied Plaintiffs' request for holding the formal hearing in <br />Nucla, Colorado by an Order dated October 28, 2010 and that the Board denied, by order <br />dated November 8, 2010, a request to continue the formal hearing thirty days. The Division <br />denies that these actions of the Board were arbitrary, capricious, prejudicial, or violated <br />Plaintiffs' due process rights. The Division denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 20 <br />and all its subparts. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.