Laserfiche WebLink
BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />Notice of Violation No. MV- 2011 -034 <br />FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER <br />IN THE MATTER OF THE NOTICE OF POSSIBLE VIOLATION BY IGNACIO <br />VASQUEZ, SR., CORRECTIVE ACTIONS, AND CIVIL PENALTIES FOR <br />FAILURE TO PROTECT AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE AFFECTED LAND, <br />File No. M- 2000 -089 <br />THIS MATTER came before the Mined Land Reclamation Board ( "Board ") on <br />October 12, 2011 in Denver, Colorado to consider a possible violation, cease and <br />desist order, corrective actions, and civil penalties against Ignacio Vasquez, Sr. <br />( "Operator ") for failure to protect areas outside of the affected land from slides or <br />damages occurring during the mining operation, file number M- 2000 -089. Michael <br />Cunningham appeared on behalf of the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />( "Division "). There were no appearances on behalf of the Operator. <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 110c permit, number M2000 -089, for a 9.7 -acre <br />sandstone operation. The site, known as the Perdue site, is located in Section 5, <br />NW 1 /4, Township 3 North, Range 70 West, 6th Principal Meridian, 3.5 miles <br />northwest of Lyons, Colorado in Boulder County. <br />2. The Division conducted an inspection of the site on May 25, 2011 and <br />observed that the northeast and southeast permit boundary markers were missing. <br />The Operator was present for the inspection. The Division notified the Operator of <br />a possible violation and required the Operator to conduct a survey and replace the <br />boundary markers. <br />3. The Division conducted a follow -up inspection of the site on August 31, <br />2011 and found that the Operator had replaced the northeast and southeast permit <br />boundary markers. The Division determined that 11.6 acres had been disturbed. <br />4. On September 2, 2011, the Division sent the Operator the inspection <br />report and a Reason to Believe a Violation Exists letter which provided notice <br />regarding the alleged violation and the October 2011 hearing. <br />