Laserfiche WebLink
'. <br />order to lower their bond <br />(See Exhibit C) The permit amendment <br />was granted, but the severe disturbance area was never changed, <br />and was simply left inactive. On May 1993, an inspection of the <br />Division occurred. The inspection did not hold M&M in violation. <br />M&M was unable to make its agreed upon payments to Zigan and <br />Zigan foreclosed. (See Exhibit D). When the foreclosure was <br />completed, Zigan re-entered the premises and recommenced mining. <br />Zigan did not increase the area of severe disturbance over and <br />above the area which was disturbed when Zigan took title to the <br />property. <br />On September 28, 1995, an inspection was held wherein the <br />state discovered that the severe area of disturbance was in <br />excess of the 2.1 acres. (~ Exhibit E) Zigan was notified of <br />this on January 19, 1996. (fie Exhibits F and G) <br />On February 20th, Zigan submitted an application to the <br />Mined Land Reclamation Division to increase the area of severe <br />disturbance to 8 acres. [Exhibit H]. The application has been <br />awaiting action by the Division since that date. <br />On January 19, 1996, Zigan was cited for failure to perform <br />reclamation as prescribed by the reclamation plan and an <br />inadequate bond. All of the violations, in whole or in part, <br />related to the issue of the severe disturbance area. <br />2 <br />