PERMFILE60849 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MMRR Quarry, File No. 2004-067 Response to Tony Peterson letter of Dec. 2, 2004 December 16, 2004 Page 2 two particular sets of allegations constitute any potential grievance under the Reclamation Act. Certainly it is not uncommon practice for DMG permits to be processed out of sequence with County permits, and the allegation that no permit submittal has been made to the County is an allegation that is solely, independently addressed within the jurisdiction of the County. Under the heading of "Future Use," Mr. Peterson "contends" that the applicant will propose to implement a water storage facility at the project site. This speculation is contrary to the permit application submitted for DMG review, which is currently on display in Gilpin County. The scope of DMG reclamation review does not extend to such a hypothetical situation -the post-mining use proposed in this case is simply not water storage. The DMG review process does not contemplate airing complaints, scheduling conferences and hearings, and so forth, to address an alleged potential for injury that has absolutely no basis in the application. (Furthermore, even if the County's 1041 regulations could be applied to a private project on private property, the state enabling statute requires an actual project proposal in a "Matter of State Interest" for 1041 review to take effect.) Due to the purely speculative and/or irrelevant nature of all of the alleged bases for Mr. Peterson's objections, we submit that his letter does not qualify him as "aggrieved" within the meaning of the Reclamation Act and therefore without good cause to protest or petition for a hearing. Requests for Permit Denial or Conditions Colorado Revised Statute 34-32.5-115(4) states that the MLRB "shall not deny a permit except on one or more of the following grounds," and, in subsection (d), as one of the discretionary grounds for denial, lists a mining operation, reclamation program, or proposed future use "contrary" to law, including local permits, licenses, and approvals. No evidence is provided by Mr. Peterson that DMG application 2004-067 is contrary to any law, including any local permit, license, or approval. The Peterson letter contains a bare contention to this effect, but this is in no way substantiated by cited evidence that the County regulates mining activity. Evidence related to the County's regulatory program tends to indicate that mining operations and reclamation are generally accommodated by County policy. In any event, the Peterson letter does not provide any evidence that the 2004-067 application violates any law. And since the application is not contrary to any law, the letter provides no grounds for denial of the project under C.R.S. 34-32.5- 115(4)(d). It should also be noted that the cited statute does not provide authority for the requested conditional approval. Past DMG cases have demonstrated that conditions in state permits related to County authority are typically unnecessary and/or unauthorized. Authority to Acton Behalf of Gilpin County While Mr. Peterson's duties as Community Development Director for Gilpin County may empower him to act as an agent of the County in certain circumstances, it is questionable whether he is authorized to submit an objection under the Reclamation Acton behaff of Gilpin County and its electorate. A resolution or formal action of the County Commissioners may be necessary to properly commit Gilpin County to formal proceedings before the MLRB.