Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br /> BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br /> STATE OF COLORADO <br /> Notice of Violation No. MV-2012-006 <br /> FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER <br /> IN THE MATTER OF A POSSIBLE VIOLATION BY AGC RESOURCES, LLC AND <br /> FORFEITURE FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF <br /> AN ORDER, PERMIT OR REGULATION, File No. M-1983-141 <br /> THIS MATTER came before the Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Board") <br /> on February 8, 2012 in Denver, Colorado to consider a possible violation by AGC <br /> Resources, LLC ("Operator"), revocation, and forfeiture for failing to comply with <br /> the conditions of an order, permit, or regulation, file number M-1983-141. <br /> Michael Cunningham appeared on behalf of the Division of Reclamation, Mining <br /> and Safety ("Division"). There were no appearances on behalf of the Operator. <br /> Mark Steen, purporting to represent the owners of the land underlying the site at <br /> issue, entered an appearance. <br /> The Board, having considered the materials presented with this matter and <br /> having been otherwise fully informed of the facts in this matter, hereby enters <br /> the following: <br /> FINDINGS OF FACT <br /> 1. The Operator holds a 110(2) permit for a 9.83-acre gold and silver <br /> mining operation. The site, known collectively as the Cash and Who Do Mines, is <br /> located in Section 12, SE 1/4, Township 1 North, Range 72 West, 6th Principal <br /> Meridian, 10 miles northwest of Boulder, Colorado in Boulder County. <br /> 2. On December 21, 2004, the Division conducted an inspection of the site <br /> and found that the 3rd level adit was discharging mine water. In April 2007, the <br /> Division approved a surface and groundwater monitoring plan through Technical <br /> Revision 06 to permit number M-1983-141. Under Technical Revision 06, the <br /> Operator is required to submit Annual Water Monitoring Reports to the Division <br /> with the Annual Report. <br /> 3. On May 5, 2009, the Division inspected the site and found that an <br /> unapproved secondary escape-way had been constructed outside the permit boundary. <br /> The Division required the Operator to conduct a survey and determine whether the <br /> secondary escape-way had been constructed outside the permit boundary. <br />