ENFORCE30150 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD STATE OF COLORADO FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER IN THE MATTER OF CONNELL RESOURCES, INC., THE TELLER PIT SITE, FILE NO. M-1998-058, NOTICE OF VIOLATION MV-2001-029, CEASE AND DESIST ORDER, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR DISTURBING AREAS OUTSIDE THE AFFECTED AREA THIS MATTER having come before the Mined Land Reclamation Board ("the Board") on March 21, 2001, for a hearing pursuant to Section 34-32.5-124, C.R.S. The Board, having considered the petition, the testimony and exhibits of the parties, and having been otherwise fully informed in the premises, hereby makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and enters the following Order: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Connell Resources, Inc. ("Connell"), is permitted to conduct a 25 acre 112c surface gravel and road base operation in Rout[ County, Colorado, Section 17, T6N, R85W, 6'" P.M., pursuant to Permit No. M-199-058. 2. The Board conducted a Formal Public Hearing on June 28, 2001, to consider a possible violation of the provisions of Section 34-32.5-116(4)(1), C.R.S., for failure to protect areas outside the affected land from mining-related damage. 3. Connell notified the Division on May I5, 2001, that disturbance outside the permitted area had probably occurred. On June 14, 2000, [he Division conducted an inspection of the site. During the inspection, the Division noted that approximately 0.2 acre had been disturbed outside the permitted affected area west of [he north end of the pi[ area, to the north of the adjacent gas line. 4. The Board finds that the off-site disturbances noted by the Division during its June 14, 2001, inspection constitute damage to areas outside the affected land in violation of Section 34-32.5-116(4)(1), C.R.S. 5. The Board finds that Connell voluntarily reported its violation and backfilled all the pit run material in the disturbed area in violation, and that Connell has been cooperative with the Division throughout the inspection process. 6. The Board finds that a civil penalty is unwarranted in this case.