Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />3. The Division has no objection to including a finding that Powderhorn ceased <br />extractiori operations on December 2, 1999. <br />ORDER <br />1. The Division has no further comment other than that contained above concerning the <br />addition of proposed paragraph 6. <br />The Division objects to the addition of proposed paragraph 7. There were a number <br />of issues discussed, mostly informally outside the presence of the Board and perhaps <br />at the hearing itself ~, but the formal vote of the Boazd did not include the items <br />proposed by Powderhom. Essentially the motion before the Boazd and passed by the <br />Boazd included only the following items: <br />a. That the Boazd upholds both NOVs. <br />b. That the Boazd finds that Powderhom has failed to abate the NOVs. <br />c. That the Boazd orders Powderhom to continue reclamation at the site and to stay <br />in compliance with the terms and conditions of its permit. <br />d. That Powderhom will work with the Division and its attorneys in Powderhom's <br />bankruptcy proceeding to address Colorado's concerns. <br />e. That it is up to the Board to decide whether it will agree to stay any future <br />litigation (although the Board did not make a specific decision on this issue <br />during the hearing). <br />f. That Powderhom will submit montldy reports to the Division on the <br />reorganization process, and that the Division will report to the Boazd on <br />Powderhorn issues. <br />The transcript of the formal motion and vote by the Board shows that the items <br />Powderhorn now proposes to include in the order were not in the Boazd's motion and <br />were not voted on by the Board. Specifically, the Boazd did not vote to preclude seeking <br />civil penalties or bond forfeiture, the Board did not vote to not seek a cessation order, and <br />the Board did not vote to preclude listing Powderhom on the AVS system. Moreover, <br />my recollection is that the parties never discussed, inside or outside of the hearing, not <br />putting Powderhom on the AVS system "absent a significant failure of Powderhorn to <br />comply with its Reclamation Plan." Accordingly, since the Boazd did not include the <br />proposed items in its motion and vote, these items cannot properly be included in the <br />Boazd's Order. <br />~ f have not reviewed the complete transcript of the entire hearing. <br />