ENFORCE34390 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Objection to the Withdrawal of the Hearing on Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009." This title at once recognizes Basin's objection as a separate "matter" and makes clear that the order itself constitutes the Boazd's "final" resolution of that matter. In addition, the record shows that the Tatums not only regarded the March 21, 2001, hearing on Basin's objection as a separate administrative proceeding, but also raised the issue and won the Board'sassenttnthcirpositiononthatquesti~n. TlteTatumsinsistedthattheBoardvot~onwhethcr to grant their separate motion to intervene with respect to Basin's objection in order to establish the separate character of that proceeding and thtu ensure that the Board's disposition of Basin's objection would constitute "final agency action." After deliberating whether the Tatums' separate motio:t to intervene was appmpriate, the Board voted to ~fiant the'1'atums' :notir.-. `^ a~: •- _• ` ~ "° Boazd necessazily adopted the Tatums' position that the administrative proceedings on Basin's objection to vacation of the NOV were separate and distinct from the earlier (and aow resurrected) proceedings on Basin's challenge to issuance of the NOV in the fast place. The Auard's eventual decision to reinstate the NOV attd to order a hearing on Basin's resun•ccted challenge umstituted `'fnal agency action" on Basin's objection to DMG's decision to vacate the NOV. As such, the Boazd's "Final Order" would be reviewable under § 24-4-106(2) if that statute were applicable (which it plainly is not). The Tatums' position on the separate nature ofproceedings nn Basin's objection to vacation of the NOV, and the Board's acceptance of that position, comport with the Colorado statute that authorizes administrative review of actions arising under the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act. That statute, § 34-33-t24(1)(a), makes separate attd distinct provision fi,r -9-