ENFORCE25889 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-z- 5. The Board moved to grant a continuance on the La Plata hearing to the April Board meeting. The motion included a stipulation that TCMI, Inc. would perform the work necessary to abate cessation order CO-88-046 by the April Board meeting. The Board reserved the right to revisit the entire matter at the April meeting. 6. At the April 26, 1989 Board meeting, Mr. Irwin along with Mr. Michael Bertoldi of TCMI, Inc. again addressed the Board. Mr. Irwin indicated that the work required to abate the cessation order had not been done, due to questions involving right-of-way adjacent to an irrigation canal and accuracy of hydrologic information in the La Plata permit. 7. Mr. Tony Sarver, the owner of the land upon which La Plata Coal Company's sediment pond and sediment collection ditches are located addressed the Board. Cessation order CG-88-046 had been written because La Plata Coal Company had been using Mr. Sarver's irrigation ditch as a disturbed area sediment collection ditch. The abatement specified that measures be taken to ensure proper sediment control for the mine site without interfering with Mr. Sarver's irrigation ditch. Mr. Sarver expressed some frustration that the work had not yet been done, and further indicated that his primary concern was that the existing ditch be cleaned out so he would be able to irrigate this summer. 8. Mr. Irwin stated that, if ditch cleanout was all that was necessary, his company could perform the work within a short period of time. Mr. Sarver indicated that he would Drefer to have the work done himself and be reimbursed for it. .. 9. Mr. Irwin reiterated his company's interest in permitting the site and requested that the Board grant sufficient time to allow TCMI, Inc, to develop and submit a permit application before the bond was forfeited. He indicated that TCMI, inc. had no objection to revocation of Permit C-87-072. CONCLUSIONS G LAW 1. Under the terms of C.P,.S. 34-33-124(4) and Rule 5.03.5(4)(c) when a hearing has been held on a show cause order, the Board shall issue a written decision and the reasons therefore concerning suspension or revocation of the permit. 2. Under the terms of C.R.S. 124(4) and Rule 3.04.1(1)(b), the Board snail declare all or an appropriate Dart of a performance bond for any permit as forfeited if the Board determines that the permittee has failed to conduct the surface mining and reclamation operation in accord with the Act, the Rules and the Permit within the time required and that it is necessary in order to fulfill the requirements of the permit and the reclamation plan, to have someone other than the Dermittee correct or complete the reclamation.