2006-06-14_REVISION - M1978314 (4)

Home Browse Search

conservation. A gravel pit expansion will adversely affect the aesthetics of the ranches and the enjoyment of the surrounding lands. The proposed gravel pit expansion will have a severe and• detrimental impact on the Sage and Sharptail Grouse populations in its vicinity. These' species have been proposed for "Endangered Species" designation. Egeria Park is an area that has had millions of dollars invested in it by concerned citizens who want to protect and preserve the last, and best, bastion of large scale traditional ranching and prime, landscape scale private wildlife habitat in the area. The Board Does Not Have Jurisdiction On September 10, 2004, the Division of Minerals and Geology (the "DMG") approved a transfer of the 110 Permit to King Mountain. •As a result of that fransfer, King Mountain became the "permitted operator" of the gravel pit_ Thereafter, on November 23; X004,-King Mountain f:1ed its Conversion Construction Materials Application with the DMG requesting the addition of 331 acres to the permit boundary, 184 of which were to be mined. On that date, King Mountain had been operating the gavel pit under the 110 Permit for just over two months. C.R.S. §34-32.5-110(5) (a) (the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act (the "Act")) expressly states: "Any operator conducting an operation under a permit issued under,this section [Section 110 permit] who has held the permit for two consecutive years or more and who subsequently desires to expand it to a size in excess of the limitation set forth in subsection (1) of this section may request the conversion of the permit...." Under that plain statutory language, King Mountain may not convert the 110Permit to a 112 Permit until it has operated the gravel pit for a minimum of two years, i.e.,, until September 10, 2006. •THe statute clearly applies to ~ operator, not just the original permittee. Conversely, anyone else, including a successor operator, who has held a permit for less than two years, is not eligible to apply for a conversion. The requirement that a successor (like any other) operator operate the gravel pit for at.least two consecutive years is logical. It provides both the DMG arid the operator time to determine whether the new operator is qualified to manage and run the mine, to establish and confirm the operator's intentions with respect to the mine, and to insure that the operator is financially stable for the Tong-term life of the mine. King Mountain's Failure To Comply With The Financial Warranty Requirement Under C.12:S. §34-32:5-117(1) and (3)(a), the Board may not issue the 112 Permit to King Mountain until King Mountain provides a financial warranty which includes "proof of financial responsibility". See- also Rule 4.1(2). The .bond guarantees compliance with the operator's reclamation plan and the terms and conditions of the operating permit. As such, the financial warranty requirements of the-Act provide strong economic incentives for the operator to complete reclamation and return the mined lapd to productive use. This is particularly important when a shell corporation is the operator that doesn't even own the"larid but rather leases it for its operations. King Mountain's failed to provide a financial warranty with respect to its initial application for Permit Conversion. King Mountain also did not submit its required annual report or pay the annual fee. Given this pattern, the Board should be concerned about King Mountain's reliability on the issue of