Laserfiche WebLink
32-117(4)(c)(II), C.R.S. for failing to post additional financial warranty within sixty <br /> (60) days after notice of adjustment. The Board issued a written order effective <br /> February 10, 2014 ("February 2014 Order"). <br /> 15. In the February 2014 Order, the Board found the Operator in violation <br /> of the Act and Rules, as found in the January 15, 2014 hearing, and ordered the <br /> Operator to (a) complete certain corrective actions to remedy violations of the Act <br /> and Rules and satisfy the Operator's obligations under his performance warranty, <br /> (b) cease and desist activities, and (c) pay civil penalties. The corrective actions <br /> required by the February 2014 Order included for the Operator to, by August 1, <br /> 2014, delineate the boundary of the affected area, remove trash and unusable <br /> equipment from the site, and adequately safeguard the adit to prevent <br /> unauthorized entry; and within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this Order (by <br /> April 11, 2014), submit $7000 to the Division to increase the total financial <br /> warranty amount to $8,000. <br /> 16. The Division inspected the site on August 14, 2014. The Operator was <br /> not present for the inspection. During the inspection, the Division found that the <br /> Operator had not removed the refuse from the site, had not delineated the boundary <br /> of the affected area, and had not adequately safeguarded the adit entrance. The <br /> Division also found that the Operator failed to submit the increased financial <br /> warranty required by the February 2014 Order. The Operator failed to complete <br /> the corrective actions and failed to pay of the unsuspended civil penalty ordered in <br /> the February 2014 Order. <br /> 17. On August 19, 2014, the Division mailed a Reason to Believe a <br /> Violation Exists letter to the Operator for the Operator's alleged failure to comply <br /> with the conditions of a Board order. The August 19, 2014 Reason to Believe a <br /> Violation Exists letter notified the Operator that the matter would be considered at <br /> the September 2014 Board meeting. <br /> 18. At the hearing, the Operator testified that he does not own certain <br /> equipment on the site that is required to be removed under the February 2014 <br /> Order and that he has limited ability to complete the corrective actions required by <br /> the February 2014 Order. The Operator also testified that he has another mine, in <br /> Central City, and has no interest in the Mackey Mine. The Operator also testified <br /> that he does not oppose the Board revoking the permit and ordering the financial <br /> warranty forfeited. <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> 19. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Colorado <br /> Mined Land Reclamation Act, Article 32 of Title 34, C.R.S. (2013). <br /> George E. Otten <br /> Mackey Mine, M-1984-013 <br /> MV-2014-034 3 <br />