Laserfiche WebLink
conservation. A gravel pit expansion will adversely affect the aesthetics of the ranches and the <br />enjoyment of the surrounding lands. <br />The proposed gravel pit expansion will have a severe and detrimental impact on the Sage and Sharptail <br />Grouse populations in its vicinity. These species have been proposed for "Endangered Species" <br />designation. Egeria Park is an area that has had millions of dollars invested in it by concerned citizens <br />who want to protect and preserve the last, and beat, bastion of large scale traditional ranching and <br />prime, landscape scale private wildlife habitat is the area. <br />The Board Doea Not Xave Jrtrladictlod <br />On $eptembu S 0, 2004, the Division of Minerals and Geology (the "DMG' approved a <br />tranefor of the 110 Permit to King Mountain. As a result of that transfer. Kin6 Mountain became the <br />`permitted operator" of the Eravel pit. Thoreatter, on November 23, 2004, King Mountain filed its <br />Conversion Construction Materials Application with the DMG requesting the addition of 331 acres to <br />the permit boundary, 1 g4 of which woro to be mined. On that date, King Mountain had beon operating <br />the gxavol pit under tho 110 Pemrit for just over two months. <br />C.R3. ¢3432.3=110(3) (a) (the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act (the "Acf~) expressly <br />states: "Any operator conducting an operation under a permit issued under this section [Section 110 <br />permit] who bas held the permit for two conatcrrBve years or more and who subsequently desires to <br />expend it to a sizo in excess of the ]imitation set forth in subsection (1) of this suction may request the <br />conversion of the permit... " Under that plain statutory language, Kin$ Mountain may not convert <br />the 110 Permit to a 112 Permit until it has operated the gravel pit for a minimum of two years, 'fie, <br />until September 10, 2006. <br />The statute clearly applies to ~y operator, not just the original permittee. Conversely, <br />anyone else, including a sueoesaor operator, who has held a permit for less than two years, is not <br />eligible to apply for a conversion. The requirement that a successor (liko any other) operator operate <br />the grevol pit for at Ieast two consecutive years is logical. It provides both the DMG and the operator <br />time to determine whether the new operator is quali6od to manage sad run the mine, m establish and <br />confine the operator's intentions with rospeot to tho mino, and to insure that the operator is finaaeially <br />stably for the long-term life of the mine. <br />Ring Mountain's Failure To Comply With Tht Financial Warranty Requirement <br />Under C.R.S. ¢34-32.5-117(1} and (3}(a), the Board may not issue the 112 Pamrit to King <br />Mountain until King Mountain provides a financial warranty which includes "proof of financial <br />responsibility". >~4 a~@Q Rule 4.1(2). The bond guarantees compliance with the operator's <br />roclamatlon plan and the terms and condifions of the operating permit. As ouch, the financial warranty <br />requirements of tho Act provide strong economic incentives for the operator to complete reclamation <br />and return the mined land to productive use. This ie particularly important when a shell corporation is <br />the operator that doesn't even own the land but rather lassos it for its operations. <br />King Mountain's failed to provide a financial warranty with respect to its initial application for <br />Permit Conversion, King Mountain also did not submit its required annual report or pay the annual fee. <br />Given this pattern, the Board should be concerned about King Mountain's reliability on the issue of <br />