Laserfiche WebLink
6. On July 11, 2011, the Division mailed the Operator a second Notice of <br /> Outstanding Corrective Actions letter. <br /> 7. On August 10, 2011, the Operator submitted documentation <br /> purporting to demonstrate that a closure had been placed over the adit entrance. <br /> 8. On August 22, 2013, the Division inspected the site and again found <br /> that the boundary of the affected area was not delineated, the adit was not <br /> adequately safeguarded, trash was present throughout the site, and the financial <br /> warranty was inadequate to complete reclamation. <br /> 9. On September 12, 2013, the Division mailed the Operator a copy of the <br /> August 22, 2013 inspection report and a Notice of Financial Warranty Increase <br /> letter. That letter states that the Division calculated the cost to reclaim the site at <br /> $8,000, an increase of$7,000 over the $1,000 currently held by the Division. <br /> 10. On October 16, 2013, the Division received a letter from the Operator <br /> regarding the problems cited during the August 2013 inspection and the financial <br /> warranty increase. <br /> 11. On November 13, 2013, the Division mailed the Operator a Notice of <br /> Outstanding Corrective Actions letter; the Operator was given an additional thirty <br /> (30) days to resolve issues at the site. <br /> 12. On December 13, 2013, the Division mailed an Reason to Believe a <br /> Violation Exists letter to the Operator for (a) failure to delineate the boundary of <br /> the affected area, (b) failure to adequately safeguard the adit, (c) failure to dispose <br /> of refuse in a manner that will control unsightliness or deleterious effects of such <br /> refuse, and (d) failure to post additional financial warranty within sixty (60) days of <br /> the date of notice of adjustment. The Reason to Believe a Violation Exists letter <br /> notified the Operator that the matter would be considered at the January 2014 <br /> Board meeting. <br /> 13. The Operator failed to correct the issues cited during the August 22, <br /> 2013 inspection. <br /> 14. At its January 15, 2014 meeting, the Board convened a hearing to <br /> consider alleged violations against the Operator. The Operator did not enter an <br /> appearance at the January 15, 2014 hearing. The Board found the Operator in <br /> violation of(a) Rule 3.1.12(2) of the Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Colorado <br /> Mined Land Reclamation Board for Hard Rock, Metal, and Designated Mining <br /> Operations ("Rules") for failing to delineate the boundary of the affected area of the <br /> site; (b) section 34-32-116(7)(d), C.R.S. for failing to dispose of refuse in a manner <br /> that will control unsightliness or deleterious effects of such refuse; and (c) section 34- <br /> George E. Otten <br /> Mackey Mine, M-1984-013 <br /> MV-2014-034 2 <br />