PERMFILE101999

• Permit No: M2001114
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 2/7/2002
• Doc Name: Response to application comment
• From: DMG
• To: William E. Taylor
• Section_Exhibit Name: Permit documents
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman 8t„ Rogm 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
February 7, 2002
Mr. William E. Taylor
P.O. Box 26
Masonville, CO 80541
RE: Loukonen Brothers Stone, Starks Quarry, File No. M-2001-114
Dear Mr. Taylor:
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•SAFETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walther
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Thank you for your letter commenting on the above referenced application for a mined land
reclamation permit. Unfortunately, your letter was received after closure of the public comment period
for this application, and was not considered by the Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) in .
deciding on the merits of the application. On January 30, 2002 DMG approved the application for the
Starks Quarry and established the reclamation bond amount for this operation at $70,000.00. Once
Loukonen Brothers Stone provides the bond and the required performance warranty,'the permit will be
issued.
Please be advised that you may have the right to appeal the decision to approve the Starks Quarry .
application. I have enclosed with this letter a copy of Rule 1.4.11 of the Construction Materials Rules
and Regulations of the Mined Land Reclamation Boazd describing the administrative appeal process.
If you decide to file an appeal, your written petition must be received by DMG no later than 4:00 PM
on Februazy 28, 2002. If you send a petition by first class mail, you aze advised to mail the letter no
latter than February 25, 2002 so that it will be delivered to DMG in a manner timely.
DMG has reviewed your public comment letter, and has determined that a number of the issues listed
do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Mined Land Reclamation Boazd. Specifically, impacts to
surrounding property values, noise, and truck traffic aze issues to be considered at the local level
(Lazimer County) and aze not considered by the state of Colorado in the mined land reclamation
pernutting process. Your discussion of the principles of "Grandfathered Rights" and whether or not
quarry operations aze appropriate for a particular piece of property aze also considerations vested at the
local level. Your questions about the need for reclamation concurrent with quarrying operations would
fall under the purview of the Mined Land Reclamation Boazd. However, in a limited impact quarry
operation (defined as an operation that affects 10 acres or less) concurrent reclamation is not always
possible. This is particulazly true for flagstone quarries where different sizes and shapes of rock and
different colors of rock are removed from different azeas of the quarry and are mazketed for differing
end uses.
You also requested a copy of the reclamation plan for the existing quarry variously known as the
Weaver Quarry, the Loukonen Masonville Quarry, or the Loukonen Quarry. The mined land