Laserfiche WebLink
-5- <br />12. EXECUTIVE SESSION File No. P-87-070 <br />Consideration of bond forfeiture for the Prospecting permit; <br />San Juan County. <br />The Board approved the Staff's recommendations and found the <br />operator in violation for failure to file a Notice of <br />Completion of Prospecting Operations, revoked the permit and <br />forfeited the bond. <br />13. EXECUTIVE SESSION File No. P-89-004 <br />Consideration of bond forfeiture for the Prospecting permit; <br />San Miguel County. <br />The Board approved the Staff's recommendations and found the <br />operator in violation for failure to file a Notice of <br />Completion of Prospecting Operations, revoked the permit and <br />forfeited the bond. <br />14. FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING <br />MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY File No. C-80-007 <br />Consideration of the operator's request to vacate NOV C-93-112 <br />issued for failure to properly notice surface landowners above <br />underground workings and adjacent areas. <br />Staff informed the Board that the Division had withdrawn this <br />matter from the Agenda; the operator submitted the information <br />requested and, therefore, the Division vacated the violation <br />associated with this case. <br />15. FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING <br />MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY File No. C-80-007 <br />Consideration of the operator's request to vacate NOV C-93-114 <br />issued for failure to submit proper permitting documents for <br />light-use roads on the mine site. <br />Staff said that according to the definitions in the Coal <br />Mining Act, light-use roads are located on the site, but have <br />not been permitted or addressed in the reclamation plan. The <br />area in question constitutes a light-use road and it was used <br />by the operator accordingly. Staff said the Division felt the <br />NOV was issued appropriately and asked that it be upheld by <br />the Board. <br />The operator was represented by Kathleen Welt, Scot Anderson, <br />an attorney, and Henry Barbe during this hearing. They said <br />that the operator's position was that the light-use road does <br />not exist on the site and that the NOV should be vacated, due <br />to improper issuance. <br />