My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE56259
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE56259
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:58:52 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 4:59:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2001001
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
5/17/2001
Doc Name
PRE-HEARING ORDER
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.
/
21
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
List of Witnesses, fixhibiu and ~OOaI Issues of Mr. & Mrs. Jack ~ Carol Akin ~ Page - 4 <br />BNS -Lice Camp Gravel Ph appllication hl - 2001- 001 <br />Mr. Gates' testimony is necessary to show that the applicant is not in <br />compliance with Regulations 31 ~ 34, as well as Section 402 of the Federal <br />Clean Water Act,to show that the applicant is not in compliance with the <br />applicable State and Federal Laws <br />Mr. Wallace H. Erickson <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />The purpose of the subpoena for Mr. Erickson is to cross-examine him <br />an the rationale for recommending approval of the application as well as on the <br />issues of Agency bias. <br />Statement of Additional Issues <br />For each and every subpoena denied by the Department, the parties raise <br />the issue of lack of due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth <br />Amendment to the United States Constitution and the applicable provisions of <br />the Colorado Constitution, a violation of tht Administrative Procedures Act, <br />and, agency bias. <br />The parties also raise the issue of agency bias overall in favor of <br />applicants and opposed to any other interest seeking due process before the <br />Board. <br />The parties also raise the issue of the lack of due process in the <br />Administrative Procedures Act as to the inability of the parties to obtain the <br />time necessary to develop the record for judicial review, cross-examine <br />witnesses, and cross-~a*r~ine the authors of documents tYse Board intends to <br />use in support of its decision to grant the application, as well as to present <br />evidence and testimony in their case-in-chief necessary to present an adequate <br />record for judicial review and due process of law. <br />The parties also raise the issue that the Board, by denying them <br />procedural due process of Jaw, also denies them substantive rights guazanteed <br />by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution <br />and corresponding provisions of State Law. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.