Laserfiche WebLink
• ~" <br /> <br />BEFORE THE M[NED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />FLvDNGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER <br />LN THE MATTER OF BRAD ROWE, UNPERNIITTED GRAVEL PIT S[TE. F[LE NO. Nt-99-038, <br />CONSmERAT[ON OF A REQUEST TO E`CTEND COMPLIANCE DATES OF NOTICE OF <br />VIOLATION NO. NIV-99-016 <br />THIS MATTER having come before the Nlined Land Reclamation Board ("the Board") on July 28, <br />1999, for a hearing, the Board makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and <br />enters the following Order: <br />FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />1. On June 8, 1999, the Board issued Notice of Violation No. MV-99-016 ("NOV") to <br />Rowe for conducting mining operations without a permit. The NOV is incorporated by reference <br />herein. <br />The NOV ordered Rowe to secure a Limited Impact 110 permit by July 28, 1999. <br />3. At the July 28, 1999 Board hearings, Rowe petitioned the Board for an extension of the <br />July 28, 1999 compliance date noted in paragraph 3 above. As grounds for the request, Rowe stated <br />that due to his inexperience with reclamation permitting, he had been unable to complete the <br />application file in a timely manner due to misunderstandings about engineering demonstrations and <br />professional surveys. <br />4. Rowe has complied with the corrective action, civil penalty, and interim bond <br />requirements of the NOV. However, the interim bond was not finally approved by the Division until <br />July 1~, 1999, due to technical corrections that were required. <br />5. The Division recommended to the Board that in order to help Rowe comply with the <br />NOV in the face of the delay it had encountered, the July 28 compliance date for securing a 110 permit <br />could be changed to September 16, 1999. The Division also recommended that the Board grant an <br />"after the fact" extension of the interim bond date Co July 1~, 1999. <br />6. The Board finds that Rowe was unable to comply with the orisinal July 28, 1999 <br />compliance date for securing a 110 peartit contained in the NOV due to the short time frame and to his <br />misunderstandings about certain permitting requirements, and therefore that a compliance date <br />extension is warranted in order for Rowe to comply with the NOV. <br />7. The Board further finds that Rowe had attempted in good faith to comply with the date <br />for submitting an interim bond, but that circumstances beyond his control delayed Division approval of <br />the interim bond. As such, an extension of the date by which the interim bond was to be posted is <br />warranted. <br />