Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />(d) Battle Mountain's proposed reclamation plan <br />failed to conform to § 34-32-116(7), C.R.S. (1988 Cum. Supp.) and <br />MLRD Rule 6. <br />20. Notwithstanding Battle Mountain's failure to comply <br />with regulatory and statutory requirements, the MLRB approved the <br />Application on March 23, 1989. <br />21. The MLRB approval was a final action. <br />FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF <br />(State Administrative Procedure Act, <br />§ 24-4-101, et seq.) <br />22. CES realleges and incorporates by reference the <br />allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 21. <br />23. In approving the Application, the MLRB was acting <br />in a quasi-judicial capacity. <br />24. The MLRB's approval of the Application wa_ ultra <br />vires, arbitrary or capricious, not in accordance with the <br />procedures of § 24-4-101 et se ., C.R.S., an abuse of discretion, <br />otherwise contrary to law, and or exceeded the MLRB's <br />jurisdiction, purpose and authority in at least the following <br />respects: <br />(a) The Application was incomplete in that it <br />failed to contain information regarding Pzoject water needs and <br />the sources and rights to such water; <br />(b) The Application did not adequately assure that <br />disturbances to the hydrologic balance will be minimized' during <br />and after mining operations as required by §§ 34-32-115 and <br />116(7)(8), C.R.S., and MLRD Rule 6; and <br />(c) The Application did not adequately provide <br />that the arroyos, drainages, and surface and ground waters in and <br />around the mine site shall be protected from cyanide <br />contamination and other pollutants as cequired by <br />§ 34-32-116(7)(c), C.R.S. <br />25. The MLRB's approval of the Application was <br />prohibited by its own rules and the Act, inconsistent, with and <br />unsupported by the evidence in the record, and arbitrary and <br />capricious. <br />-5- <br />