GENERAL33107

• Permit No: M2001001
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 7/2/2001
• Doc Name: PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Dr~nver, Colorado 80203
DIVISION OF
Phone: [phone] MINERAL S
FAX: [phone] &
GEOLOGY
June 8, 2001 0.ECLAMATION
MINING•SAFETY
Ms. Marilyn Boynton
700 E. 2nd St., #20 Bill Owens
Governor
Cortez, CO 81321
Greg E. Walther
Executive Dneclor
RE: Line Camp Cravel Pit Application, File No. M-1001-001 Michael B. Long
Division Direclar
Deaz Ms: Boynton:
Governor Bill Owens and Greg Walther, Executive Director of Colorado Department of Natural
Resources, forwarded copies of your correspondence to this Division and we would like to take the
opportunity to respond to your comments and concems.
In one of your letters you mentioned concems that the Mined Land Reclamation Board (Board) does not
objectively evaluate the information set before them. The Mined Land Reclamation Board is a citizen
Board appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. They are citizens with expertise in
various fields of study and represent various interests associated with the mining industry, agriculture,
and conservation. It is their charge to carry out the mandates of the Mined Land Reclamation Act and
the Construction Materials Act. It has been my experience that the Board acts in the best interests of the
people of the State of Colorado.
Please keep in mind that the Board cannot make land use decisions. Land use decisions, such as where
to allow a gravel mining operation, aze reserved to county governments (this would be Montezuma
County for the Line Camp Pit application).
In addition, the Construction Materials Act does not allow the Board (or Division) to evaluate and pass
judgement on the cumulative hydrologic impact of a mining operation or a series of mining operations.
The Board (and Division) may only evaluate a proposed operation within the confines of the authority
granted to them by the Construction Materials Act. They must judge the merits of each application,
based upon the applicant's ability to address the requirements of the Act and the implementing Rules and
Regulations.
Specifically, the Board (and Division) are to ensure that the operation will "minimize" impacts to the
hydrologic balance. The Act implies that an applicant satisfies the "minimization" criteria by meeting
the statutory requirements of the Water Quality Control Division, the Office of the State Engineer and
other applicable Federal Rules and Regulations.
The Act also requires an applicant to demonstrate that their activities will not result in offsite impacts.
Offsite impacts in the Line Camp Pit case could result from proposed mining and reclamation activities
present during a flood event. The Division evaluated flood events and provided its analysis to the Board
and other parties prior to the hearing, while providing an expanded discussion of the analysis during the
hearing. The Board evaluated all the evidence presented during the hearing and based its decision on
that evidence and the constraints of the Act and Rules. Again, our evaluation was Limited by statute to
impacts associated with the Line Camp Pit and not the combined effects from other mining operations