1999-09-15_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1997092

Home Browse Search

Mmures/1}anscript Aueust25 1999 Faze 6 original Majors Ranch; and further that he reclaim the stockpile area as well as making sure that [he mined area is -~~ reclaimed. Any other discussion? All in favor say aye. THE BOARD: (All in favor.) PAULIN: Opposed. Motion was unanimous. BLASI: Thank you. PAULIN: Thank you. Formal public hearing, Schmitt Reddi Nlix, File M-81-005 [Item No. 5]. All [hose wishing [o testify please stand and raise your right hand. (Sworn.) SCHREINER: I'm Tom Schreiner with the division staff to present Agenda Item Number 4, and [his matter is consideration of the assessment of civil penalties and cortective actions for notice of violation NV-98-023. This matter was originally continued from the September 1998 boazd meeting, and [he violation was issued for mining without a permit. I've prepared a little handout for the board, and I'll just start with the cover page. [A] violation was issued to Smith Reddi Mix by the Mined Land Reclamation Board on July 29 of'98 for a violation of C.R.S. 34-32.5-]09(1) for mining without a permit. The operator was found by the board to be mining seven acres outside the permit boundary. A[ that time a cease and desist order was issued to Smith Reddi Mix and that operator was ordered [o submit an interim financial wartanty of $17,500. That requirement was fulfilled on September [he 2nd of 1998. The cease and desist order has also been complied with. At [he time of the original board hearing on Iuly 29 of 1998 [here was an ongoing dispute between the operator and the landowner, and what had happened was the operator had mined outside his permit area and disturbed seven acres onto the adjacent landowner's property, and there was ongoing dispute between those two parties. And at that time it was our belief and position that both [he landowner and the operator had some involvement with mining on [hose seven acres. We had enough evidence [o show [hat the operator had, in fact, mined. We did no[ have enough evidence to show that the landowner was involved. Also because of the dispute [here was some question as [o corrective actions. Would the landowner allow the operator a chance to get on his property and perform [hose corrective actions? So as a matter of [hat dispute what happened was the boazd found a violation and made a decision to postpone the assessment of civil penalties and corrective actions until after [he dispute was settled. This matter was continued several times until today. What I can tell you is that [he dispute has been settled in Adams County Dis[ric[ Court. Settlement has been reached, and also [he division, myself, had inspected the site last Thursday and found that essentially there are no corrective actions -- any further corrective actions to be performed on-site. The disturbance of the seven acres was seven acres within an active river channel in what I would call an intermittent stream. West Bijou Creek flows intermittently, and due to [he heavy flows that have happened since July of last year, there have been a number of large storm events [hat have resulted in the streambed -- the excavations in [hat s[reambed have now filled in with sand. The site has actually -- those excavation areas -- a good portion of them have been completely covered over with ripazian and wetland vegetation. So that azea is filled in and stable. So I don'[ feel that there is any need for any cortective actions on-site. - So with that what I would suggest or recottunend to the board on behalf of the division is that, firs[ of all, the interim financial wartanty of $17,500 be returned to the operator and that no further corrective actions be .. required. I also recotnmend [hat [he boazd assess a civil penalty -- a total civil penalty of $2,707, and [his would be for one day of violation at $1,000 per day and $1,707 for 45 hours of staff time at $37.93 per hour. There was considerable time and effort spent on behalf of the division trying to understand what actually happened at [his site, and at the request of [he landowner trying to get down [o [he details of who did what. So that's where [he 45 hours of staff time come in. The operator, Joseph Schmitt from Schmitt Reddi Mix, is here and his consultant Steve O'Brien. Also I do have slides showing what the site looked like at the time of the July board hearing about that time as well as what the site looks like today if you're interested. I note [hat some of you may no[ have been here last year when [his violation was issued. JAVERNICK: I'd like to see them. PAULIN: Show us [he pictures. SCHREINER: Originally [his site was permitted for slightly under 10 acres, and a portion of [hat would have been the plant site as well as roughly half of the river channel, this being West Bijou Creek. Part of the permit area would have included [he west half of the creek channel. And the reason the violation came into being was [hat Schmitt Reddi Mix had, in fact, excavated a number