Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4 of 5 <br />Show Cause Order <br />Once the Division determines that a pattern of violations exists, Section 34 -33- 123(7) requires the <br />Division to issue a show cause order to revoke or suspend the permit if the permittee's violations either <br />(1) are or were caused by the unwarranted failure of the permittee to comply with any requirements of <br />the Act, Rules, or any permit conditions; or (2) are or were willfully caused by the permittee. See also <br />Rule 5.03.3(1). Bear's violations were both unwarranted and willfully caused. <br />First, Bear did not provide any justification to the Division that would explain why its pattern of cited <br />violations were warranted under the circumstances, which violations consist of Bear's failure to renew <br />the Permit and failure to complete its reclamation obligations. Therefore, Bear's violations were not <br />warranted by the circumstances. <br />Second, Bear's affirmative statement in its December 27, 2011 letter to the Division that Bear would not <br />seek renewal of the Permit or comply with the Permit's reclamation obligations after expiration of the <br />Permit demonstrates Bear's violations were willfully caused by Bear. <br />The Division, therefore, issued an order to show cause as to why the now - expired Permit should not be <br />suspended or revoked (Show Cause Order) to Bear on February 25, 2013. Attachment 4. Bear was <br />served with the Show Cause Order on March 2, 2013. See Attachment 4. <br />Following the Division's issuance of a show cause order, the Board must hold a public hearing pursuant <br />to Rule 5.03.3(3). A permittee may file a written response and request Board review within 30 days <br />after service of the show cause order. Rule 5.03.3(3)(a). If, however, the permittee does not request a <br />Board hearing, the Board must hold a hearing and make findings of facts and issue a written decision <br />regarding the suspension or revocation of the permit. Rule 5.03.3(3)(b). Bear did not file a written <br />response and did not request review. Therefore, the Board must make findings of fact and issue a <br />written decision concerning suspension or revocation of the Permit pursuant to Rule 5.03.3(3)(b). <br />If the Board suspends or revokes the Permit pursuant to Rule 5.03.3(3)(b), the Rules require the Board to <br />either (1) specify a period in which the permittee shall complete reclamation or (2) forfeit the <br />performance bond for the operation pursuant to Rule 3.04. Rule 5.03.3(4). Because Bear has <br />demonstrated its intent to not complete reclamation, the Board should forfeit the performance bond for <br />the Permit pursuant to Rule 3.04. Proceeds of the forfeited bonds shall be available to the Division for <br />reclamation of the areas covered by the Bond. Rule 5.03.3(4). <br />Forfeiture of Performance Bond <br />Pursuant to Rule 3.04.1, the Board shall declare a performance bond for any permit forfeited if the <br />Board determines any of four identified criteria are satisfied. One of the criteria is applicable here: <br />The permittee has failed to conduct the surface mining and reclamation operations in <br />accordance with the Act, these Rules and the permit within the time required, and that it <br />is necessary, in order to fulfill the requirements of the permit and reclamation plan, to <br />have someone other than the permittee correct or complete reclamation. <br />Rule 3.04.1(1)(b). Bear has failed to conduct the surface mining and reclamation operations in <br />accordance with the Act, the Rules, and its Permit as explained above. Bear also has affirmatively stated <br />