My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-11-20_ENFORCEMENT - M1978208
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1978208
>
2006-11-20_ENFORCEMENT - M1978208
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2020 11:10:12 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:27:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978208
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
11/20/2006
Doc Name
Board Order
From
MLRB
To
Elk Creek Sand & Gravel, LLC
Violation No.
MV2006017
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.
/
5
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
2. As described in prior Board orders on this matter, on Febtvazy 16, 2006 the Board found <br />Aspen Enterprises in violation of Section 34-32.5-116(4)(1) of the Construction Materials <br />Act, 34-32.5-101 et seq., C.R.S. (2006) ("Act") for failing to protect areas outside the <br />affected lands from slides or damage during mining operations. The Boazd issued a cease <br />and desist order, ordered corrective actions and assessed civil penalties. The Board also <br />ordered Aspen Entetprises to submit a complete permit amendment within 90 days of the <br />signature date of the Board order and post a new reclamation bond within 60 days of the <br />same date. The Boazd order was signed in April 2006 and is referred to herein as the <br />"April Order." <br />3. Aspen Enterprises failed to comply with the April Order. <br />4. On September 13, 2006, the Board issued a declaratory order to Elk Creek modifying the <br />April Order by changing the permitted acreage from 6.663 to 9.92 acres. The modification <br />was conditioned on two factors, both of which had to be met before the acreage <br />modification took effect: (1) Elk Creek becoming the successor to Aspen Enterprises' <br />permit; and (2) Elk Creek submitting a reclamation bond in an amount and form suitable to <br />the Division. <br />5. Based on testimony from the Division, Elk Creek has complied with both conditions. <br />Because a permit successor normally succeeds to all existing permit conditions, the issue <br />presented to the Boazd is whether the enforcement mechanisms contained in the April <br />Order should all apply to Elk Creek. <br />6. Based on the recommendation of the Division, and to promote the goal of reclaiming the <br />land affected by the mining operation, it is appropriate for the Boazd to declare certain <br />portions of the Apri] Order moot and to vacate other portions of the April Order. <br />Aspen Enterprises/Elk Creek Revised Order <br />9ctober 18, 2006 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.