Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C. That mining has occurred below and to the east of <br />elevation 5560 which constitutes a violation of the permit. <br />D. That the operator has failed to minimize disturbance <br />to the hydrologic balance in violation of 116(1)(H). <br />F.. Silted water was directly discharged into Plum Creek <br />and, in violation of the plan, the operator constructed a <br />settling pond. <br />F. That the facts constitute a violation of the law and <br />the permit. <br />G. That a cease and desist order issue immediately, <br />effectively requiring Earl Lawrence and others to cease and <br />desist all mining operations. <br />H. That the matter of civil penalties would be taken up <br />by the MLRB at the June meeting. <br />I. That the cease and desist order would remain in full <br />Force and effect pending review of a new reclamation plan which <br />would be submitted to the Board and considered at the Board's <br />September meeting. <br />J. That the transfer of the permit from the defendant, <br />Lawrence Construction Company, to the defendant, Cooley Gravel <br />Company, would be tabled or held in abeyance pending the June <br />meeting of the MLRB. <br />8. On or about May 30, 1965, the defendants, David C. <br />Shelton and the MLRB, issued a written notice of violation M-85- <br />090 and cease and desist order, together with a letter dated play <br />30, 1985, copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated <br />herein by reference as Exhibits A and B respectively. <br />9. The plaintiff herein was adversely affected or aggrieved <br />by the agency action of May 30, 1985 for the following reasons: <br />A. The plaintiff, as lessee of the Lawrence Pit under <br />contract with the defendant, Lawrence Construction Company, which <br />defendant had been engaged in or controlling the mining operation <br />under the permit in question, was and continues to be precluded <br />from selling or otherwise disposing of materials already mined <br />and stockpiled until June 26, 1985. <br />B. That the defendant, Lawrence Construction Company, <br />was prohibited from performing reclamation pursuant to written <br />contract with the plaintiff, until June 26, 1985 when it was <br />partially permitted to perform reclamation. <br />C. That the plaintiff was and continued to be <br />prohibited from extracting gravel Erom the pit pursuant to its <br />agreement with Lawrence Construction Company. <br />,3- <br />