2006-09-08_ENFORCEMENT - M1978208

• Permit No: M1978208
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 9/8/2006
• Doc Name: Division response to Petition for Declaratory Order
• From: DRMS dab
• To: MLRB
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY t/ ~~~lll
Department of Natural Resources y~G % r//
1313 Sherman St., Room 215 / ,
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone] ~~~~~ ~ / / /
FAX: [phone] /
September 8, 2006 ~/
Mined Land Reclamation Board
c\o Tyson Powell, Boazd's attorney
Assistant Attorney General
Colorado Attorney General's Office
1525 Sherman Street, 5th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
RE: Permit No. M-1978-208; Division's of Reclamation, Mining_and_
Petition for Declazatory Order
Dear Board Members:
~~
COLORADO
DIVISION O F
RECLAMATION
MINING
~-
SAFETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Russell George
Executive Director
Ronald W. Cattany
bivision Direcor
Natural Resource Tms[ee
The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety ("Division's is in receipt of the Petition for
Declaratory Order submitted by Juliet Moores on behalf of Elk Creek Sand and Gravel, LLC.
Pursuant to Rule 2.5.5(1), 2 CCR 407-4, the Division wishes to be heazd on this petition and
therefore requests party status in this matter.
The petition pertains to a violation concerning a permit held by Aspen Enterprises, permit no. M-
1978-208. During a formal hearing conducted in February 2006, the Mined Land Reclamation
Boazd ("Board") found that Aspen Enterprises violated § 34-32.5-116(4)(1) of the Colorado Land
Reclamation Act for the Extraction of Construction Materials ("Act"). The violation was based
on the fact that the permit only allowed mining on 6.6 acres, rather than 9.9 acres. Ms. Moores
now wants this Boazd to reverse its finding that the permit only allowed for mining on 6.6 acres
and instead enter a finding of 9.9 acres. Ms. Moores alleges that this finding of the Boazd results
in an inability to reduce an unsafe high wall and "effectively sterilized the remaining resource in
the quarry."
Under Rule 2.5, 2 CCR 407-4, the Boazd has several options to resolve petitions for declaratory
order. For example, the Boazd can decide not to rule on the petition, rule on the petition based
solely on the written submittal, or set the matter for a hearing. Rules 2.5.3 and 2.5.4, 2 CCR
407-4. The Division's position is that Elk Creek's petition should be denied based on the written
submittal thereof.
Under Rule 2.5.1, 2 CCR 407-4, any person who is or may be directly and adversely affected or
aggrieved and whose interests are entitled to legal protection under the Act may petition the
Board to terminate controversies or to remove uncertainties as to the applicability to the
3~etitioner of any statutory provision or any rule or order of the Boazd.
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines