Laserfiche WebLink
BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br /> STATE OF COLORADO <br /> Notice of Violation No. 2023-006 <br /> FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,AND ORDER <br /> IN THE MATTER OF THE FORFEITURE OF THE FINANCIAL WARRANTY OF <br /> STEEL ROSE 1, INC., File No. M-2006-031 <br /> THIS MATTER came before the Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Board") on <br /> July 19, 2023, via videoconference for a hearing to consider forfeiture of the financial <br /> warranty for Steel Rose 1, Inc., ("Operator"), file number M-2006-031. There were <br /> no appearances on behalf of the Operator. Elliott Russell appeared on behalf of the <br /> Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety ("Division"). <br /> The Board, having considered the presentation, testimony, and materials <br /> presented and having been otherwise fully informed of the facts in the matter, <br /> enters the following: <br /> FINDINGS OF FACT <br /> 1. The Operator holds a 110(2)permit for a 9-acre gold and silver mining <br /> operation. The site, known as the Steel Rose 1, is located in Section 21, Township <br /> 11 South, Range 73 West, 6th Principal Meridian. <br /> 2. On April 24, 2023, the Division received a letter from Operator, <br /> forwarded by the U.S. Forest Service, stating that Operator's shareholders had <br /> agreed to"let this mine DRMS Permit number M-2006-031 to end." The letter also <br /> stated that Operator would "forfeit our bond so reclamation can be completed." <br /> 3. Operator's annual report, map, and fee were due on May 10, 2023. The <br /> Division never received a submittal by Operator. <br /> 4. On May 22, 2023, the Division mailed the Operator a Reason to <br /> Believe a Violation Exists letter stating alleged violations for failure to submit the <br /> required annual report, map, and fee. The letter also provided details regarding a <br /> hearing on this matter scheduled for June 21, 2023. <br /> 5. Through an order effective July 17, 2023, the Board ordered Operator's <br /> permit M-2006-031 revoked and found that the financial warranty was subject to <br /> forfeiture due to Operator's failure to cure a default of its performance warranty. <br />