Laserfiche WebLink
gavel processing. The Division determined that the Respondent is crushing grave] <br />with the intent to sell it to third parties and that such activity requires a permit. <br />3. The Division issued the Respondent a notice of violation on February 7 for <br />commencing a new mining operation without a permit. <br />4. The Respondent admitted processing gravel at the Ghost River Pit. However, it did <br />not excavate any gavel from its natural occunrence. <br />5. The Respondent stopped all activity after the Division's inspection and intends to <br />reclaim all disturbances, including existing disturbances. <br />6. The issue is whether the Respondent's conduct constitutes a mining operation. <br />7. C.R.S. § 34-32.5-109(1) provides that before engaging in a new operation, an <br />operator shall first obtain a reclamation permit. <br />8. C.R.S. § 34-32.5-103(13) defines "mining operation" to mean the development or <br />extraction of a construction material from its natural occurrence on affected land. <br />9. The Respondent did not violate C.R.S. § 34-32.5-109(1) because it did not extract <br />construction material from its natural occurrence. It used material that had been <br />previously excavated by a different operator and stored in stockpiles at the site. <br />10. The definition of "mining operation" includes processing operations on affected land. <br />The Respondent's crushing constitutes processing operations. However, the <br />Respondent processed aggegate that had been previously excavated and stockpiled <br />by a third party. This, by itself, is not a mining operation. <br />11. If the Respondent had excavated, stockpiled and crushed the material, all of those <br />activities would have constituted a mining operation. Since the Respondent had not <br />