Laserfiche WebLink
3. LaFazge admits the inspector's findings. A LaFazge contractor was stripping material <br />and apparently did not notice that it had crossed the permit area boundary. LaFazge <br />retained a reclamation consultant, Habitat Management, to reclaim the affected <br />acreage in question. <br />4. LaFarge has removed all excess overburden and topsoil, regraded the area, and ripped <br />and seeded the soil with an approved seed mix. <br />5. The land in question is owned by the United States Department of Energy. A <br />representative of that agency testified that it is satisfied with LaFazge's reclamation, <br />and will cooperate with any additional work, including weed control. <br />6. C.R.S. § 34-32.5-116(4)(1) provides that operators are required to protect areas <br />outside of lands affected by permitted mining from damage occumng during mining <br />or reclamation operations. <br />7. LaFazge violated C.R.S. § 34-32.5-116(4)(1) by failing to protect approximately two <br />acres of land owned by the USDOE from damage occumng during its mining <br />operations. <br />8. LaFarge's permit authorizes LaFazge to disturb lands only within the permit area, and <br />LaFazge's disturbance of the USDOE land constitutes a violation of the permit. <br />9. C.R.S. § 34-32.5-124(2) provides that if the Board determines that any provision of <br />Article 32.5 has been violated, it may issue a cease and desist order. The Board finds <br />that no cease and desist order is necessary in this instance because LaFarge has <br />completed all remediation necessary to address this violation. <br />10. C.R.S. § 34-32.5-124(7) provides that a person who violates any provision of a permit <br />issued under Article 32.5 shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $100.00 <br />