ENFORCE21288 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Company records indicate royalty was first paid to Mr. Woodring for materials removed in August 1980. Our production records indicate mining took place in the pit four times. th 1980 we produced approximately 74,000 tons of material; in 1982 71,600; in 1983 67,700; and in 1987 53,500. The total production from the pit since we took over was 266,800. In addition a contractor removed 20,000 tons of over burden for borrow material on a highway project. As you can see, most of the activity took place in the first few years after Com took over the pit. th our first annual report, submitted in May 1981, it appears we indicated activity that exceeded the limits established in the permit. The sewnd annual report in May 1982 indicated even more activity that exceeded the limits. Then in June 1982, the Division conducted an inspection. The report indicated "No problems noted etc.". As many of you may recall in 1982 construction activity on the Western Slope came to an abmpt halt. With the exception of the crashing in 1983, no further Honing activity took place for four years. When we crashed in 1987 it was to provide materials for the small local contractors working in the area. [ believe after studying the history of this pit that the permit boundary was violated before Com Construction took the pit over. I don't believe the small amount of material we removed over the past 14 yeazs would account for the difference between the present disturbed area and the permitted azea. I believe the original permit was done poorly and was done only to meet the minimum requirements to obtain a permit. So the question is how do we fix the problem? The best vvay to fix this problem is to apply for a l 12 permit to cover the affected area including any additional mineable ground. Several weeks ago I met with representatives from Mesa County's planning staff concerning the possible expansion of the pit under an anticipated 112 permit. The County planners supported the permit and indicated the expansion would not need a county permit . They view it as an expansion of an existing "grandfathered" use. I recognize that until we obtain a new permit that mining cannot continue. !n addition we agree that we will begin preparation of a 112 permit and submit it to the Division by no later than October 30. Also I hope you will not find to penalize Com Construction Co. for this situation. Not all of the events were within our control. Also resources can be more effectively used to fix the problem than to pay a fine.