Laserfiche WebLink
post a mine identification sign, and missing or incorrectly placed boundary markers. <br />The inspection report required the Operator to appear at a hearing before the Board <br />on December 13-14, 2017 regarding the violation and set a Jarivaiy 12, 2018 <br />deadline for the Operator to address the compliance problems identified in the <br />report. <br />4. The inspection report also stated that the financial warranty set <br />during the 1996 permitting process was insufficient to cover the costs of reclaiming <br />the current mine disturbance. The Division calculated a new financial warranty of <br />$8,504, detailed in a reclamation cost estimate included with inspection report. The <br />inspection report informed the Operator that a surety increase of $4,806 was <br />necessary to bring the current financial warranty amount of $3,698 up to the new <br />amount. The Division also informed Operator that the surety increase would be <br />presented at the December 13-14, 2017 Board meeting. <br />5. On November 13, 2017, the Division mailed a Reason to Believe a <br />Violation Exists and Notice of Board Hearing letter to the Operator. The letter <br />identified failing to protect areas outside of the affected land from slides or damage, <br />as the violation to be considered by the Board at its December 13-14, 2017 regularly <br />scheduled meeting. <br />6. At the Board's December 13, 2017 meeting, testimony was presented by <br />the Division's representative, Elliott Russell, regarding both the violation and the <br />increase in the financial warranty. Mr. Russell presented photographic evidence of <br />the off-site disturbances and map overlays indicating where mining activities had <br />gone beyond the permitted area. Regarding the increase in financial warranty, Mr. <br />Russell testified that estimated fees related to moving equipment for a reclamation <br />were standardized expenses throughout the Division's assessments and necessary to <br />ensure that adequate funds were available to conduct reclamation if the Operator <br />failed or was unable to do so. <br />7. The Operator's representative, Ms. Graham, also testified regarding the <br />issues presented. Ms. Graham did not present evidence that the off-site disturbances <br />had actually occurred within the permitted boundaries. Regarding the increase in <br />financial warranty amount, Ms. Graham testified that businesses closer to the <br />permitted area were available to perform reclamation work without expenses related <br />to mobilization and transportation of machinery. <br />Bad Boys of Cripple Creek Mining Co., Inc. <br />Bad Boys Pit 1 M-1996-081 <br />MV -2017-060 <br />