My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE21758
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE21758
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:31:44 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:02:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1986007
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
2/21/2001
Doc Name
CORRECTED ORDER FINDINGS OF FACTS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND BOARD ORDER GLEN SOUTHWICK NOV MV-2000-030
From
DMG
To
BACON & SOUTHWICK
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Pnge ? <br />5 ~ As of June 21 the chicken-wire had been replaced with chain-link fences, wooden posts, and a higher stone <br />wall. Topsoil adequate to finish reclamation had been salvaged and stored at the site. Several rocks had <br />fallen into the creek, but by [he June 21 inspection these had been cleared away, and [he creek was flowing <br />smoothly through the area with no obstruction. <br />6. Mr. Southwick testified that it appeared the company had disturbed an area outside the permit area. He <br />testified that the company had cleaned up the disturbance, including [he creek. <br />7. § 34-32.5-116(4)(1), C.R.S. requires that Bacon & Southwick protect areas outside of the affected land from <br />slides or damage occurring during the mining operation and reclamation. <br />8. Bacon & Southwick caused damage outside the affected land for this permit, in violation of Section <br />l 16(4)(1). <br />9. § 34-32.5-124(2), C.R.S. authorizes the Board to issue a cease and desist order if it determines that any <br />provision of Article 32.5 has been violated. A cease and desist order is appropriate in this case because the <br />violation is not yet properly abated. <br />10. § 34-32.5-124(7), C.R.S. provides that a person who violates any provision of a permitissued under Article <br />32.5 shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than one hundred dollars per day nor more than one <br />thousand dollars per day for each day during which such violation occurs. The Boazd finds it appropriate to <br />assess the minimum penalty in [his case because there is no threat to public safety, minimal impact on <br />surface water and impact only to surface owned by the operator. The Board further finds it appropriate to <br />suspend most of the penalty if Bacon & Southwick complies with the Board's order. <br />ORDER <br />Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Board orders that Bacon & Southwick S&G <br />shall: <br />(A) Apply for an amendment to its Constmction Material (I 10) Extraction permit by November 20, <br />2000; and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.