Laserfiche WebLink
as the permit is not in the administrative record for this case. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24- 4- 106(6) <br />(record "shall include the original or certified copies of all pleadings, applications, evidence, <br />exhibits, and other papers presented to or considered by the agency ... "). Further, the <br />Defendants have asserted unequivocally that "the Board did not consider [Cotter's] permit file, <br />other than specific portions the parties presented to it, " and have not claimed that Cotter's <br />permit was presented to the Board. See Answer Brief at 60 -64. The Defendants have not <br />identified any "provision" of permit number M- 1977 -300 that Cotter purportedly violated. In the <br />presentation of its case, the Division did not request that the Board find Cotter in violation of its <br />permit. See AR:00415 -17. The record, therefore, belies Defendants' claim that a permit <br />violation may be implied here from the facts. <br />Defendants contend that "[a]s a holder of a reclamation permit, Cotter is obliged to <br />comply with the Act," Answer Brief at 61, but cite no provision of Cotter's permit that <br />incorporates such alleged mandate. Defendants' citation to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34- 32- 109(5)(a) <br />does not support their position, as that section merely states, in pertinent part, that reclamation <br />permits "shall be effective for the life of the particular mining operation if the operator complies <br />... with the provisions of this article ...." Thus, while violations of the Act may provide <br />grounds to find that a permit is no longer effective, they do not mean that the permit, itself, is <br />violated. <br />The cases upon which the Board relies do not support Defendants' contentions that a <br />permit violation may be implied here from the facts. In Moya v. Colorado Ltd. Gaming Control <br />Comm'n, 870 P.2d 620 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994), the Commission made the findings required by <br />15 Jo Reply of the Mined Land Reclamation Board and Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining and Safety to Plaintiff's Response to the Board and Division's Motion for <br />Reconsideration of Court's Order Regarding Certification of the Administrative Record at 5 ¶10 <br />(Nov. 2, 2010). <br />34 <br />