Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />Mr. Robert Bright, Director <br />July 18, 1994 <br />Page 2 <br />C <br />Minerals and Geology, permit no. M-86-076. The permit is administered through the <br />Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Board pursuant to the Colorado Mine Land <br />Reclamation Act, 34-32-101, et seq., as amended, and the Mineral Rules and <br />Regulations of the Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Board as amended through April, <br />1994. Limited impact permits apply to mining operations which affect less than 10 <br />acres for the life of the mine and extract less than 70,000 tons of mineral, overburden <br />or a combination thereof per calendar year. The permit requires a mining plan, <br />reclamation plan, financial warran and roof of access among_other submittgL <br />requirements. a su jeer permit was issued after reviev4 and approval of the mining <br />p an an appropriate maps the La Plata County Land_Use~idministrator in Junes of <br />1986. jSince that time, thousands of tons of ore have been removed an <br />the mine. ~>sS "~3 <br />~ L~+~E ~ R~ ffj4 `~i ~ <br />DGMC has recently become the successor operator for this current permit an yys~-~J <br />is in the process of complying with MLRB requirements resulting from a minerals ~~yT <br />program inspection report dated August 8, 1993. ~/~~~¢ 'M V~°~"~ a ,,{{ roac. <br />Apr Gh0[r~G in m;ne p(~, ~(gkall~t ~~ ~, <br />r <br />_~ I have informed our client that any expansion of operations beyond the currently prtG, By ~ <br />permitted 9.9 acre area or the building of new structures for different activities than pQr~=f R <br />permitted or historically conducted on the property may require planning review and ~ <br />possibly building permits. However, it does not appear to me that the currently <br />permitted activity at the site requires application review under LPLUS. Clearly, LPLUS <br />appears to lack any recognizable standards related to non-oil and gas mineral ~zs <br />extraction activities. I can only infer that these permitted activities are similar to the ~ . Se <br />numerous county held gravel extraction permits that exist around the county and S~F <br />therefore would not require full review and processing to allow for continued use. So <br />long as the use is active and currently permitted by appropriate governing state <br />agencies, the periodic las demand and market requires) use of these permitted <br />operations is a pre-existing use. To conclude otherwise would lead to an <br />administrative quagmire of monitoring, proof and standards clearly not anticipated in <br />LPLUS. <br />After you have had an opportunity to review this matter, please contact me <br />with any request for further information or other questions that you may have. We <br />would like to receive your written conclusions so that we may assure our client that <br />its permitted activities will not be the subject of dispute with the county. Thanks in <br />