ENFORCE20261 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M;n~teS, ~~ne z4-z5, ~z DRAT Subject To Board Approval It was MOVED that the Board not reconsider this violation. SECONDED AND PASSED 4 for (Cooley, Stewart, Danielson. and Cattany); 1 against (Danni); 1 abstention (Kraeger-Rovey); Jouflas not present for the vote. .:. Regarding the NOV issued for failure to contain tailings in the impoundment, Staff said the Division has inspected the site on a monthly basis. Staff said the June 23, 1992 inspection was the first inspection during which the Division found that all of the tailings were completely cleaned up, mitigating the problem. Mr. Clayton Johnson, on behalf of the operator, addressed the Board and said that the operator feels the fine was severe in this case. The Board discussed this matter briefly with the operator. Mr. Tatman briefly commented that he felt the fine was excessive. It was MOVED that the Board deny the operator's request for reconsideration of this matter. SECONDED AND PASSED 5 for (Cooley, Stewart, Danielson, Danni and Cattany); 1 abstention (Kraeger-Rovey). 17. FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING PINE RIVER PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED File No. M-85-027 P. 0. Box 3188 Durango, CO 81302 All persons wishing to give testimony were sworn. NE Sec. 3, T35N, R7W, N.M.P.M., La Plata County, 8 acres; surface gravel operation. Consideration of a request for a Declaratory Order, releasing the operator from the obligation to pay the 1992 Annual Fee, and releasing the reclamation bond. Staff presented EXHIBIT A, the operator's May 14, 1992 request for a Declaratory Order and the Division's May 26, 1992 response. Staff said the operator was informed that the Dl vision would oppose this request, because procedures are provided in the Minerals Rules by which he could secure bond release and permit termination. The operator was provided with a copy of the applicable rules. Staff said that during a phone conversation, the operator stated that he wished to pursue a decision from the Board regarding this matter. Staff said that at that time, the operator was advised to attend the Board to present his request. Staff said the operator, Mr. Dan Hopper, indicated that he would not attend this Meeting (and it was noted that he was not present for this Meeting). Staff said the Division's position is that there are procedures in the Rules whereby the operator could secure release of the bond, terminate the permit and no longer be required to pay annual fees. Therefore, the Division recommended that the Board deny Mr. Hopper's request for a Declaratory Order.