My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE22987
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE22987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:32:30 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:18:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988101
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
9/23/1991
Doc Name
FONDIS PIT PN M-88-101 BOARD ORDER
From
MLRD
To
ELBERT CNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
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 />Pit access road washed out. Mr. Taylor further claimed that the <br />county did not have ownership of all of the mineral rights to <br />Fondis Pit area. Based on Mr. Taylor's testimony, the Board con- <br />tinued the hearing to its September 1991 Board meeting in ord@r <br />to consolidate the hearing with a hearing on violations of <br />§34-32-116(7)(9) and (h), C.R.S. and 534-32-11(2)(a)(III), C.R.S. <br />6. Pursuant to the permit, the county had constructed a <br />road crossing across the Spring Branch Creek. On or about May <br />19, 1991, following a strong rain, the road crossing was washed <br />out and some debris was deposited outside of the approved permit <br />boundary. The deposition of debris off-site was a failure to <br />protect areas outside of the affected area from damage as <br />required by §34-32-116(7)(9). <br />7. The county has replaced the road crossing with a low- <br />water crossing. However, the county has not amended its permit <br />to include the replacement road crossing or otherwise submitted a <br />design to the Division for its approval. <br />8. The county consents to the entry of the attached order <br />which sets out the corrective action plan proposed by the Divi- <br />sion. <br />9. The county and the Division further agree that the <br />Hoard should set the appropriate civil penalty based on the con- <br />tents of this stipulation and the evidence introduced at the <br />hearings. The Division will propose a civil penalty in the <br />amount of $3,100.00, but the county may request that the Board <br />set a lower amount. <br />GALE A. NORTON <br />Attorney General <br />RAYMOND T. SLAUGHTER <br />Chief Deputy Attorney General <br />TIMOTHY M. TYMKOVICH <br />Solicitor General <br />PATRICIA S. BANGERT <br />Deputy Attorney General <br />JERRY W. GOAD <br />First Assistant Attorney General <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.