PERMFILE64218

• Permit No: C1982054
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 7/25/1990
• Doc Name: DRAFT MINUTES MLRB
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~, a ~~F~
Subject 1'o Board Approval
Minutes, July 25, 1990
PAGE 10
Mr. Heifner presented EXHIBIT B - a June 20, 1990, letter to the Board
and Division in which ee requested a timetable adjustment for
completion of the reclamation work at the Snyder Quarry. Also
contained in the Exhibit was information about reclamation work
completed at the site and work that remains incomplete. Referencing
the Exhibit, Mr. Heifner noted a proposed timetable and the October 23„
1989, letter to the Division in which the company's ability to meet the
deadlines in the Board Order was addressed. The information contained
in the Exhibit was discussed briefly by Mr. Heifner.
Mr. Evans discussed the operator's contacts with the Division, prior to
non-compliance with Board Order. He asked that the Board not find a
violation and grant the operator's request for an extended timetable.
Mr. Evans and Mr. Heifner answered questions from the Board.
In response to a question from the Board, Staff stated that the
Division has on file a June 7, 1990, letter (written at the Division's
request) from the operator stating that they would not be able to meet
same of the deadlines and requesting an opportunity to come to the
Board to address that issue.
Mr. Greg Nagel referenced page 2 of EXHIBIT C - a copy of the January
16, 1990 Board Order and asked questions o toff and the operator,
regarding the proposed silt retention facility, silt fence and sediment
control .
Mr. Nagel presented EXHIBIT D - 3 photographs of slide areas at the
site. He discussed ~e i'S3irbances and asked further questions of
Staff and the operator.
Ms. Joyce Neville, representing Mansfield Development Company,
expressed concerns related to the slope in Williams Canyon. She also
addressed the issue of the civil penalty and corrective actions.
The Board asked questions and discussed the modified (July 24, 1990)
timetable. They suggested the reclamation timetable be modified and
that a cease and desist order be issued that would automatically go
into effect, should the operator fail to fulfill the requirements of
the previous Board Order per the new deadlines.
It was MOVED that the Board find the operator in violation of the Board
Order. ~EC'6NOED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (Kraeger-Rovey, Cooley,
O'Connor, Jouflas, Danielson and Entz).
The Director asked the operator to clarify and explain how the modified
timetable would not substantively change the original Board Order. Mr.
Heifner stated that the changes 1n the timetable would affect
disturbance areas 2 and 3. He referenced a letter (included in his
Exhibit B) from a consultant, regarding a geotechnical study performed
at those areas and discussed this in same detail.