Laserfiche WebLink
5. The County states that the Division had also refereed to this pit as the Coaldale pit, and had inspected it, <br />appazently unawaze that they were inspecting the wrong site. <br />6. The County states that it has paid annual fees and maintained this operation in accordance with the statutes <br />and roles. <br />7. The Division agrees [hat there has been some appazent confusion regarding which pit was permitted and <br />active. <br />FINDINGS OF ULTIMATE FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />8. C.R.S. § 34-32.5-109 requires that the Respondent obtain a reclamation permit before engaging in a new <br />mining operation. <br />9. The issue is whether the County was operating a new mining operation without a reclamation permit. Both <br />[he Division and [he County appeazed to believe that the County's one active mine is permitted, until the <br />Division discovered that the County had requested that the wrong permit be terminated. <br />10. The County was not operating a new mine. It was operating an existing mine for which the permit was <br />terminated as a result of the mutual mistake of the parties. The County requested that the wrong permit be <br />terminated. The Division apparently terminated it, notwithstanding the fact that reclamation was not <br />complete. <br />11. The County has a permit to operate one mine, and is only operating one mine. The fact that the permit does <br />not apply to the active mine is the result of an administrative error. This administrative error does not <br />constitute mining without a permit. The error can be addressed without corrective action on the County's <br />part. <br />