My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020-08-10_PERMIT FILE - M1999042 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M1999042
>
2020-08-10_PERMIT FILE - M1999042 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/19/2024 7:26:43 AM
Creation date
8/11/2020 8:54:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999042
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
8/10/2020
Doc Name
Objection
From
Pitkin County Attorney
To
DRMS
Email Name
SJM
THM
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Russ Means,Minerals Program Director <br /> Colorado Division of Reclamation,Mining&Safety <br /> August 4,2020 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> and the impacts of all aspects of the mining operation on the resident herd of big horn sheep that <br /> frequent the slopes above the mine and utilize the area for winter range. <br /> The mitigation requirements of the County's permit are dated and will become more so if the <br /> mine is allowed to remain dormant for a longer period of time. These enumerated impacts and <br /> others must have relevant mitigation requirements, timely ascertained in relation to the operation <br /> of the mine. Pitkin County's permit is tied to the State permits for this mining activity. <br /> II. Temporary Cessation is Not Permited Under Colorado Law Due to a Prolonged <br /> Period of Nonproduction. <br /> Temporary cessation is defined as a period of nonproduction in the life of a mine. Info. Network <br /> for Responsible Mining v. Colo. Mined Land Reclamation Bd., 2019 COA 114, ¶ 13, 451 P.3d <br /> 1245, 1248 (July 2019) (citing Mined Land Reclamation Board Hardrock Rules 1.1(53) & <br /> 1.13.2, 2 Code Colo. Regs. 407-1); see also C.R.S. § 34-32-103(6)(a). The Colorado Court of <br /> Appeals recently confirmed that temporary cessation is a factual status that begins when <br /> production ceases on the site, regardless of any administrative status. Id. at¶¶ 11, 13. The same <br /> court ordered termination of mining operations and compliance with reclamation standards at a <br /> mine where nonproduction (i.e., temporary cessation) had continued for more than ten years. Id. <br /> at¶ 11; see also id., at¶ 7 (quoting the MLRA (§ 34-32-103(6)(a)(III)): "[i]n no case shall <br /> temporary cessation of production be continued for more than ten years without terminating the <br /> operation and fully complying with the reclamation requirements of this article."). The same <br /> statutory and regulatory requirements referenced by the Court of Appeals also apply to permits <br /> for construction materials. See § 34-32.5-103(11)(c); Construction Materials Rule 1.13.9. <br /> Pitkin County asserts that the Construction Materials Reclamation Act provides no basis for any <br /> further periods of TC for the White Banks Mine and that the permit must be terminated and final <br /> reclamation commenced. No production has occurred at the White Banks Mine in more than a <br /> decade. In fact, recent correspondence with the U.S. Forest Service confirms that the last <br /> production from White Banks occurred in 2003, approximately 17 years ago. See Exhibit 1 (U.S. <br /> Forest Service email correspondence dated February 28, 2020). <br /> The DRMS electronic files also support a conclusion that no production has occurred for over <br /> ten years. The February 20, 2020 letter from DRMS noticing a hearing in this matter references <br /> annual reports submitted by the operator identifying August 2014 as the last reported date of <br /> production and seeks to base the TC period from this date. However, the file demonstrates that <br /> the activities in 2014 did not include production. Specifically, the operator's annual report <br /> submitted in January 2015 states that the 2014 activities consisted entirely of the "removal of <br /> equipment" from the site. Indeed, the operator specifically crossed out the references to both <br /> "excavation" and "processing" from the report form. <br /> Further, in a letter from the operator to DRMS dated August 16, 2013 protesting an increase in <br /> the surety amount, the operator states that: "The existing bond of approx. $15,000 was <br /> recalculated less than three years ago and the conditions on site have not changed. There have <br /> been no additional structures built and no surface activity has occurred other than one piece of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.