My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-03-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2012-03-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:55:41 PM
Creation date
2/21/2014 9:54:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/30/2012
Doc Name
Defendants Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisd 2010 CV 367
From
Christopher Kamper, Craig R. Carver, Carver, Schwarz, McNab & Baily, LLC
To
District Court, Montrose County, Colorado
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
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.
/
16
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 remedies available under the Colorado Coal Program are not only "complete and <br />adequate," they are also speedy. Under 2 CCR 407 -2, Rule 5.03.5(3), a formal hearing "shall be <br />held within 60 days after the Board's receipt of a request therefore." The Board must then act <br />promptly at the conclusion of the hearing, as required by Rule 5.03.5(4)(a): <br />When a hearing has been held on a notice of violation, the Board shall make <br />findings of fact and issue a written decision within 30 days after the close of the <br />hearing. Such decision shall incorporate the Board's findings and its order <br />affirming, modifying, vacating, or terminating the notice or the modification, <br />vacation, or termination thereof. <br />Thus, effective remedies were available to plaintiffs. They simply chose not to pursue <br />them. <br />IV. OSM Also Denied Plaintiffs' Claims. <br />After this action was filed, plaintiffs belatedly obtained OSM informal review of the <br />DRMS determination, resulting in another administrative determination that was resolved against <br />them. In Exhibit 9, OSM did not find WFC to have violated any applicable regulation of the <br />Colorado Coal Program or any permit condition. OSM did not disturb the Division's finding that <br />its original Prime Farmlands investigation and determination had been a reasonable one. Instead, <br />OSM found that the Division had taken certain other permit actions, after the February 2008 <br />determination that Prime Farmlands were present on the Property, that OSM found to have been <br />arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 9. However, OSM found that these approvals were moot, <br />superseded by subsequent permit approvals, and therefore ordered no corrective action be taken. <br />Id. OSM targeted the topsoil redistribution aspects of these permit decisions, particularly as to <br />the depth of topsoil required. Id. As shown in Exhibits 2 and 3, topsoil redistribution is <br />incomplete on parts of the Property and has yet to begin on most of the Property. Thus, the <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.