Laserfiche WebLink
5. The Division sent the Operator a Reason to Believe a Violation Exists letter <br />and a copy of the inspection report on July 28, 2010. The letter informed the Operator of the <br />possible violation and provided information regarding a possible Board hearing on this <br />matter. <br />6. On August 18, 2010 the Division inspected the site again and also met with <br />Mr. Corkle. The Division's August 18, 2010 inspection report notes "[d]uring the <br />inspection, Mr. Corkle stated Corkle Construction wanted to correct the permit boundary <br />issue and agreed to resolve the possible violation by way of a consent agreement with the <br />Division." <br />7. The Operator signed the Staff Summary Form for Consent Agenda Items on <br />September 20, 2010. The form states in part "[b]y signing this, the Operator agrees to the <br />stated violation and will comply with the Cease and Desist Order, Corrective Action(s) and <br />Civil Penalty outlined above ...." Therefore, the Operator admitted the violation and <br />agreed to the Division's recommended penalty and corrective action. <br />8. The Division proposed a $58,000 civil penalty, with all but $1,000 suspended <br />if the Operator timely complies with the corrective actions. The penalty is calculated at <br />$1,000 per day from the July 19, 2010 inspection date to September 15, 2010, the first <br />available Board meeting date. <br />9. The Division proposed the following corrective action: the Operator is <br />required to submit a 110 to 112 Construction Materials conversion application to increase the <br />permit area to encompass the entire affected land. The conversion application must be <br />submitted by February 15, 2011 with all the materials in an approvable form by June 15, <br />2011 (120 days from the submittal date). <br />10. The Operator also agreed to the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order. <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />11. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to §§ 34-32.5-104 through <br />107, and 123 of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction <br />Materials, §§ 34-32.5-101 through 125, C.R.S. (2009) (the "Act"). <br />12. Pursuant to § 34-32.5-103(13), C.R.S., a "mining operation" is defined as the <br />development or extraction of a construction material from its natural occurrences on affected <br />land. "Affected land" is "the surface of an area ... where a mining operation is being or will <br />be conducted, which surface is disturbed as a result of an operation." § 34-32.5-103(1), <br />C.R.S. <br />13. Section 34-32.5-109(1), C.R.S., requires an operator to obtain a reclamation <br />permit prior to engaging in a new mining operation. <br />14. Section 34-32.5-123(2), C.R.S., states that "[a]n operator who mines <br />substantial acreage beyond the approved permit boundary may be found to be operating <br />without a permit." <br />Corkle Construction <br />M-1995-023 <br />MV-2010-028