Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes, May 23-24, 1990 PAGE 9 <br />It was MOVED that the Board issue a notice of violation for mining <br />without a permit, with the corrective action being that the operator <br />submit a 110 reclamation only permit and a financial warranty in the <br />amount of 55,000 within 30 days. SECONDED AND PASSED 5 for <br />(Kraeger-Rovey, Cooley, O'Connor, Donald and Entz); 1 recused (Jouflas). <br />It was MOVED that the Board assessed a civil penalty of 52,400. <br />SECONDElf711d6 PASSED 5 for (Kraeger-Rovey, Cooley, O'Connor, Donald and <br />Entz); 1 recused (Jouflas). <br />13. FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING <br />File No. M-85-128 <br />17579 tdesa Road, #A5 <br />Hesperia, CA 92345 <br />All persons wishing to give testimony were sworn. <br />Secs. 20 and 29, T49N, R19W, Montrose County, 9.9 acres; 110 metals. <br />Consider permit revocation and financial warranty forfeiture for <br />failure to comply with a Board Order. <br />Staff requested that this Item be considered simultaneously with Item <br />14. <br />In providing background information, Staff stated that in August of <br />1988, the Division received complaints from the Bureau of Land <br />Management, who owns the property upon which this operation is <br />located. -They described major problems at the site concerning <br />stability and erosion. On October 14, 1988, the Division inspected the <br />site and determined that problems did exist, regarding stability of the <br />mine bench and erosion control related to abandoned mine drainage. <br />As a result of the inspection, the Division requested that the company <br />amend the permit and implement certain corrective actions. The <br />Division sent about 6 letters to various individuals involved with the <br />organization, and they were all returned marked "undeliverable". <br />On March 27, 1989, the Division sent a Reason to Believe Letter to the <br />operator, and it was also returned marked "undeliverable". At that <br />time, the Division decided to proceed with the violation and revocation <br />processes. <br />On March 26, 1989, a Reason to Believe Letter was sent to the operator <br />at a new address. The operator then contacted the Division and stated <br />that he was unaware of the site problems and had not received the <br />inspection reports. At that time, the Division withdrew the violation <br />from hearing, forwarded the inspection report to the operator and had <br />subsequent telephone conversations with the operator, regarding the <br />site. <br />On July 24, 1989, the operator committed to achieving specific <br />on-the-ground corrections and amending the permit by October 14, 1989. <br />In November of 1989, the BLM again notified the Division and stated <br />that no actions had occurred at the site and that it remained to be it <br />