Laserfiche WebLink
BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br /> STATE OF COLORADO <br /> Violation No. MV-2016-051 <br /> FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,AVID ORDER <br /> IN THE MATTER OF A POSSIBLE VIOLATION BY DILLEY'S SAND AND GRAVEL, CEASE AND <br /> DESIST ORDER, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS,AND CIVIL PENALTIES FOR FAILING TO PROTECT <br /> AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE AFFECTED LAND FROM DAMAGE, FAILING TO MAINTAIN A <br /> FINANCIAL WARRANTY IN GOOD STANDING,AND FAILING TO COMPLY WITH <br /> PROVISIONS OF A-PERMIT,File No. M-1981-004 <br /> THIS MATTER came before the Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Board") on <br /> September 28, 2016 in Denver, Colorado to consider possible violations by Dilley's Sand and <br /> Gravel ("Operator'), cease and desist order, corrective action,and civil penalties for failing to <br /> maintain a financial warranty in good standing, failing to protect areas outside of the <br /> affected land from slides or damage,and failing to comply with provisions of a permit, <br /> permit number M-1981-004. Eric Scott and Wally Erickson appeared on behalf of the <br /> Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety("Division"). Jim Dilley and Gwen Dilley <br /> appeared on behalf of the Operator. <br /> The Board,having considered the parties' presentations,testimony,and the <br /> administrative record,and being otherwise fully informed of the facts in the matter,enters <br /> the following: <br /> FINDINGS OF FACT <br /> 1. The Operator holds a 110c reclamation permit for a 9.8-acre sand and <br /> gravel site located in Section 12,Township 4 North, Range 57 West, 6th Principal <br /> Meridian in Morgan County, Colorado,permit number M-1981-004. The site is known as <br /> the Ayers Pit. <br /> 2. The Division conducted a routine monitoring inspection of the site on April <br /> 14, 2016. The last inspection of the site was in 2009. Jim Dilley was present at the <br /> inspection on behalf of the Operator. During the inspection,the Division observed the <br /> presence of myrtle spurge,which is a noxious weed species. Further,the Division <br /> attempted,but was unable,to locate the required site boundary markers. The Division also <br /> observed that the excavation depth exceeded the one-to three-foot depth allowed by the <br /> -mining plan. The Division observed that an active high-wall had been advanced to the very <br /> edge of,or beyond, the east permit boundary. The Division's inspection report observed <br /> that the lack of setback from the boundary will likely cause impacts outside the permit <br /> boundary and leaves insufficient space to push material down from the upper edge. <br />