Laserfiche WebLink
a~~~ ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~ <br />l~ ~ 640 <br />MEMO <br />TO: Jim Cooley <br />FROM: Tony Waldron <br />RE: Pre-Hearing Conference on Division's Decision to Approve Permit Application M- <br />97-086 <br />Per your request, I am sending you a short sumtnary of the permitting process and objections <br />sun•ounding the approval of M-97-086. <br />The site is located in Pueblo County approximately 6 miles northeast of the town of Beulah. The <br />original mining was for a clay deposit which was overlain by a ] 0-20 foot thick deposit of <br />Dakota Sandstone. As clay mining progressed, it was discovered that there was a market for the <br />overburden which had to be removed to access [he clay deposit. As sometimes happens in these <br />cases, the stone mining expanded beyond the original boundaries of the clay mine. <br />Unfortunately, the operator had not bothered to obtain another permit for this activity and was <br />found in violation for mining without a permit and ordered to obtain a valid reclamation pernrit. <br />This started out as a 11 I which was converted to a 110, however, the area [hat had been disturbed <br />was larger than 10 acres and the Board ordered [he operator to obtain a 112 permit which is M- <br />97-086. The operator applied fora 1 12 permit and in doing so applied to enlarge the area to <br />cover 327 acres. <br />Now, the area where the mine is located is a state section with a minerals lease from the Land <br />Board to Ferd Mueller (the 1 12 applicant). However, in 1995, the Land Boazd sold or traded the <br />surface rights to this section to Red Creek Ranch, a local developer, who proceeded to plat some <br />of the surface into parcels that were later sold to individuals as potential building sites. However. <br />the Land Board retained the mineral rights which were leased to Mr. Mueller, along with right of <br />entry to mine the stone. As you cast imagine, this has caused quite a stir. To further complicate <br />matters, there is a rather picturesque canyon running right through the middle of the proposed <br />permit area, which is also where most of the lots which have been sold overlay. <br />From a technical standpoint. most of their mining plan is okay, however, they did not adequately <br />address hydrologic impacts to the canyon, hence the stipulation. One area which is causing most <br />of the concern is that the application proposes to "slab mine" or basically quarry the entire ] 0-20 <br />foot deposit of Dakota Sandstone over the entire permitted area, essentially conducting a 10-20 <br />foot facelift of the entire site over the life of the mine, which is at least 200 years. At this time <br />there are no residential structures on the permit area, however, it is likely that some will be <br />constructed in the future. The site, as permitted, will be limited to no more than 20 acres of <br />disturbance at any given time, to include 15 acres of `'slab" mining and 5 acres of surface stone <br />or moss rock removal. So basically, the area will be reclaimed as mining proceeds across the <br />permit area with liability release and new disturbances occurring simultaneously. <br />That is a brief synopsis of the plan and concerns. I am sending both commenters letters and our <br />decision letter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 866-4926. <br />