Laserfiche WebLink
the deadline period. Failure to do so will result in a possible violation and eventual <br />revocation of the permit and forfeiture of the current bond." <br />4. On December 3, 2008, the Division had not yet received an adequate bond for <br />the site and mailed out a Reason to Believe a Violation Exists Letter ("Reason to Believe <br />Letter") to the Operator. <br />5. On December 30, 2008, the Division received back the Reason to Believe <br />Letter marked as "return to sender/not claimed". Kate Pickford testified that the Operator's <br />phone numbers are disconnected and that the Division has not received any updated contact <br />information from the Operator. <br />6. The Division staff spent at least six hours of time at a rate $56.64 per hour, for <br />a total of at least $339.84 spent by the Division on staff time for this matter. <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />7. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to §§ 34-32.5-104, 105 <br />and 124 of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials, <br />§ 34-32.5-101 et seq. C.R.S. (2008) ("Act"). <br />8. Any person who violates any provision of a 112 permit issued under the Act <br />shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than one hundred dollars per day nor more than <br />one thousand dollars per day for each day during which such violation occurs, § 34-32.5- <br />124(7), C.R.S. <br />9. Pursuant to § 34-32.5-117(4)(b)(I), C.R.S., Operators are required to maintain <br />a sufficient financial warranty to assure the completion of reclamation of affected lands if, <br />because of forfeiture, the office has to complete a reclamation of the land. <br />10. Additionally, the Office and the Board may increase or decrease the amount <br />and duration of a required financial warranty pursuant to § 34-32.5-117(4)(c)(I)(A), C.R.S.; <br />and the financial warrantor has sixty days after the date of notice of an adjustment to fulfill <br />the new requirements, §34-32.5-117(4)(c)(II), C.R.S. <br />11. Here, the Board finds the Operator in violation of § 34-32.5-117(4)(b)(1) and <br />(c)(II), C.R.S., by failing to maintain a sufficient financial warranty and.by failing to increase <br />the amount of financial warranty as described above. <br />12. Because of the Operator's violation as described above it is appropriate for the <br />Board to assess a penalty. Here, the Board could find 38 days of violation at $100 to $1,000 <br />per day, for a total possible penalty of $38,000, pursuant to § 34-32.5-124(7), C.R.S. <br />13. Pursuant to § 34-32.5-124(2), C.R.S., the Board may also issue a Cease and <br />Desist Order if it determines that any provision of article 32.5 of the Act was violated. <br />ORDER <br />Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Board hereby <br />finds that the Operator violated § 34-32.5-117(4)(b)(I), for failing to maintain sufficient <br />Malouff Pit 2 <br />M-1982-033