Laserfiche WebLink
r_ <br />~~ <br />August 21, 1981 <br />Mr. Richard Mills <br />Empire Energy Corporation <br />6900 South Yosemite, Suite 160 <br />Englewood, Colorado 80112 <br />Dear Mr. Mills: <br />David C. Shelton <br />Director <br />Orr June 26, 1981, representatives of Empire L•nergy Corporation and the Colorado <br />Mined land Reclamation Division met to discuss the alluvial valley floor issue, <br />specifically the areal extent of the grandfathering exemption and tl~e signifi- <br />cance of Rule 2.08.5(1)(d) to the issue. This letter will address the topics <br />brought up at that meeting. <br />• Rule 2.05.5(1)(d) (section 34-33-109(7)(c)) pertains to the successive renetaals <br />of permit issued pursuant to 34-33-101 et s that include areas meeting the <br />grandfather criteria of 34-33-114(2)(e)~I~ Since previous ~tLR permits were <br />issued for the life-of-the-mine and pc~mits issued under 34-33-101 et ~sec. are <br />for 5-year permit terms, it is conceivable that areas eligible for g`ran~ifathering <br />may not be within the first 5-year permit term. Section 34-33-109(7)(c) allows <br />eligible lands to be grandfatlrered in successive permit renewals which wou]d <br />require dividing the grandfathered areas into 5-year permit terms, the Division <br />prefers to identify all eligible exempted areas at this time. <br />With respect to the life-of-mine boundary, Empire suggested the Division accept <br />the lease boundary as the geographic extent of the area the Company had demonstrated <br />financial commitment to mine. The Division does not feel that approach is consis- <br />tent with the application of the exemption clause in the Act and Regulations. In <br />the case of Eagle No. 9 mine complex for example, it would be inconsistent to <br />consider the entire lease boundary since information in the exemption request <br />submittal indicates that only the northern half of Empire's lease holdings as <br />of August 3, 1977, were planned to be developed by the No. 9 mine complex. <br />Since only a part of the lease holdings were planned to he mined or even mineable <br />by that eottrp]ex, a demonstration of financial or rctntl~tory connitmcnt oT• fire <br />rcm~ining portion of the lease ]iolJiTil;s coup] 71Dt Ise tml]c. •lltere(ore, tlic rcm:tinJcr <br />of the lease holdings could not be considered to delineate the gcosr~phic <br />extent of exemption. <br />Regarding areal extent, it seems that the only remaining issue is with the <br />• Eagle No.' 9 cotrtplex. Since the exemption for the L•agle No. 9 complex is based <br />an a life-of-mine permit No. 76-7, it seems reasonable to assume that Empire's <br />commitment to mine prior to August 3, 1977 was the entire extractable extent <br />of "P" seam which Empire controlled. This is delineated as Exhibit 'T1" of <br />the exemption request submission. Since Exhibit 'TT' is dated prior to August 3, <br />1977, the Division will accept this exhibit as delineating the anal extent for <br /> <br />ytAtl Oi COQ UieAnU u.. „n„~, n ~ ~. ~ ............. <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />D. Monte Pf3cOf, Eaecuure D~reclor PAR RESPONSE <br />Al 1\ La L:1n 1) It 1~,1;L:~11:1'1'IU\ <br />~2J Centennial Building, i3135herman Street <br />Denver, Coioratlo 60203 Tei.i30J1 639-3567 <br />