Laserfiche WebLink
21 <br /> the project was completed during the 1992 (winter) <br /> construction season. Mr. Conger referenced maps, discussed <br /> the location of the project and the areas that would be <br /> affected and provided some background information about the <br /> property. <br /> Mr. Conger referenced Rule 1. 11.2 (1) (2) and stated that his <br /> opinion was that the proposed activity qualified for an <br /> exemption. <br /> Mr. Michael Long, the Director, stated that the Division' s <br /> recommendation would be that the proposed project would meet <br /> the criteria for an exemption for the requirement to obtain a <br /> reclamation permit. He referenced the reclamation <br /> requirements and the goverment contract, and bonding <br /> requirements for the project which guarantee reclamation. <br /> The Board, based upon the evidence presented today, found that <br /> no permit would be required for the proposed activity. <br /> 18 . FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING <br /> PITTSBURG & MIDWAY COAL MINING COMPANY File No.C-80-001 <br /> Edna Strip Mine. Staff explained that the Division issued a <br /> number of violations to the operator and, as a result, the <br /> operator went through the assessment conference process with <br /> the Division. Staff said that during that time, the <br /> violations were heard, and the operator requested that the <br /> violations be vacated. <br /> Staff said that the assessment conference officer determined <br /> that the violations had been issued appropriately and they <br /> were upheld. Staff said that a request from the operator to <br /> the Director, Michael Long, that the violations be vacated was <br /> also denied. Therefore, the operator requested that the <br /> matter be heard by the Board and that the violations be <br /> vacated. <br /> Mr. John Paul, an attorney, Dave Beverlin, Wayne Erickson, and <br /> Terry Crowner were present on behalf of the operator. <br /> Staff distributed a package of information, including a copy <br /> of the NOV, copies of inspection reports, comments from the <br /> inspection, pictures, a map of the site and a June 30, 1993 <br /> letter from the operator, including their request for a formal <br /> review of this matter. Staff said this matter related to a <br /> violation for failure to treat runoff from the disturbed area, <br /> prior to discharge from the permit area; Rule 4. 05.2 (1) . <br /> Staff said the site was inspected from March 30 through <br /> April 2, 1993 , that the site was fairly wet at that time, due <br /> to the beginning of spring snowmelt, and that five (5) NOVs <br /> were issued during the inspection. <br />