My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-07-28_ENFORCEMENT - M2011014
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M2011014
>
2011-07-28_ENFORCEMENT - M2011014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:36:07 PM
Creation date
7/29/2011 7:44:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2011014
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
7/28/2011
Doc Name
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
From
DRMS
To
Dale and Ellen Schmidt
Violation No.
MV2011012
Email Name
KAP
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Materials 110 Reclamation Permit. At the hearing, the Operator provided a letter from the <br />Archuleta County Planning Department. <br />5. 'The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to sections 34 -32,5- <br />104 through 107, and 124 of the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of <br />Construction Materials, Article 32,5 of Title 34, C.R.S, (2010). <br />6. Under Rule 2.9.1 of the Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined <br />Land Reclamation Board for the Extraction of Construction Materials, 2 CCR 407 -4 :2.9 <br />( "Rules "), petitions for reconsideration must "set forth a clear and thorough explanation of the <br />grounds justifying reconsideration, including but not Iimited to new and relevant facts that were <br />not known at the time of the hearing and the explanation why such facts were not known at the <br />time of the hearing." Rule 2.9.1(2). <br />7. The Board niay consider such petitions based on written submittals in support of' <br />the petition or written opposition thereto or the Board may allow the parties to present oral <br />arguments. Rule 2.9.3. The Board granted the Operator and the Division an opportunity to <br />present oral argument on the merits of the petition. <br />Dale and Ellen Schmidt <br />File No. M-2011-014 <br />MV-2011-012 <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />ORDER <br />Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Board hereby DENIES <br />in part and GRANTS in part the Operator's request for reconsideration of the June 2011 Order. <br />The 13oard affirms and upholds the civil penalty, in the total amount of $43,509.76, <br />imposed by the June 2011 Order. The Board affirms and upholds its order suspending all but <br />$5,509.76 of the civil penalty if the Operator complies with the corrective action in the time <br />specified. The portion of the civil penalty not suspended, $5,509.76, shall be due and payable in <br />two equal payments, as follows: $2,754.88 is due on August 12, 2011, and $2,754,88 is due on or <br />before September 12, 2011. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the entire civil penalty amount, <br />$43,509.76, will be due upon the Operator's failure to comply with the corrective actions by the <br />cornpliance deadlines set forth in the June 2011 Order. Except as modified herein, the June 2011 <br />Order shall remain unchanged, in full force and effect. <br />DONE AND ORDERED this eV day of <br />2011. <br />D L <br />FOR THE COLORADO <br />REA Ri o BOARD <br />Ettio <br />Ca'Jenne Kraeg r -Rov. , hair <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.