Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chips Barry <br />Page 2 <br />AVF Grandfather Exemption <br />Rule 2.06.8(5) (a) (i) (C) <br />January 6, 1981 <br />r <br />It was in light of this inconsistency between the 1979 and 2976 statutes <br />that the above referenced regulation (2.06.8(5)(a)(i)(C)] was drafted. The <br />intent behind that regulation was to ensure that underground operators <br />who would be eligible for the grandfather exemption but for the fact that <br />Colorado did not require permits prior to 1977 could be granted an <br />exemption. The language to determine the geographic extent of Land <br />eligible for such an exemption was left flexible because we, quite <br />frankly, had very little idea which mines might be affected or what <br />kind of information could be presented to make such a showing. The <br />decision was left for the Division or Board to make on a case-by-case <br />basis. A subtle, but important point to be made here is that the <br />regulation was drafted to make the criteria in the statute fit the unique <br />situation. In no way did we intend to create a new separate and <br />distinct criterion for the grandfather exemption for underground operations. <br />The statute in my opinion takes a rather narrow view of what Lands <br />should be grandfathered, i.e., existing mines and those adjacent areas <br />prior to August 3, 2977. It was intended that the permit area be <br />defined using whatever information was available in a similar manner,as <br />it is defined in a surface mining permit. To be consistent with the statute, <br />the Division or Board must take a similar narrow view in its application <br />of the flexibility envisioned by the regulations in question. <br />Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss this issue further. <br />Dean <br />/k <br />