The Mid-Continent Limestone Quarry on federal land outside of Glenwood Springs has operated since 1982 and is governed by the 1872 Mining Law. The reigning 19th century law permits companies to mine on federal lands without having to pay royalties back to the people, so long as the mineral being mined is deemed of critical use and intended for a qualifying end purpose. The law, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant, was intended to promote western expansion.
“Limestone falls under that category for very specific applications” said Jeff Peterson with Glenwood Springs Citizens Alliance, a local watchdog group over the Mid-Continent Quarry. “But … end use matters. The justification for that is that you can’t go mine an intrinsically valuable material, like a lump of gold, and then use it as a paperweight. It needs to be used for that intrinsic purpose.”
The intrinsic purpose for extracted limestone powder from the quarry in 1982 was meant for coal mines and used to suppress methane, which could otherwise more easily combust.
After it had been closed for several years, in 2016, Rocky Mountain Industrials bought the quarry from a company called CalX Minerals. Since then, according to Peterson, the mine has produced minerals for “common variety” purposes, such as for construction materials like aggregate boulders or gravel, “which doesn’t utilize those intrinsic properties of limestone.”
The GSCA was created in 2018 as a fully-volunteer watchdog group prompted by the mine’s proposed expansion from 15 acres to 447 acres that same year. GSCA has been relentless in its mission to hold RMI and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) accountable, challenging the latter to ensure RMI is following the law.
The BLM conducted an evaluation of RMI’s 44 mining claims, undergoing a determination of common varieties (DCV) study. That final DCV report determined that the Mid-Continent Quarry did have composites deemed suitable for Federal Aviation Administration runways, which qualifies as “locatable” (critical) use under the 1872 Mining Law. However, to Peterson’s knowledge, RMI has not proven its marketability — another requirement.
Other materials RMI has been selling were determined to be of common variety, which requires a material sales contract in adherence to the 1947 Materials Act. Compared to acquiring a permit under the 1872 Mining Law, obtaining a material sales contract comes with more red tape, including an National Environmental Policy Act process. “That takes into account the economy, the community and other factors,” Peterson added.
A Jan. 3 letter from the Department of Interior (DOI) to RMI noted that through the DCV study it was determined that the company had indeed been selling for common variety use.
“Following the completion of a DCV report and additional opportunities for RMI to provide information, the DOI has determined that RMI’s mining operations at Mid-Continent Quarry include mineral materials extraction not covered by the General Mining Law,” BLM Public Affairs Officer Heather Marsh wrote in a statement to The Sun.
“Future mining proposals for Mid-Continent Quarry that include mineral materials will require a mineral materials contract,” continued Marsh, adding that “Mineral extraction and sale under the General Mining Law must meet the standard [outlined in 43 Code of Federal Regulations 3830.12(b)] and be supported by evidence of market entry.”
“Our interpretation is that … they’re not allowed to sell anything under their 1872 Mining Law permit unless they can show marketability for the FAA runway product,” said Peterson. “And that they would need to get a materials sales contract if they want to produce any common variety material.”
The Jan. 3 letter also required RMI to pay royalties from an escrow account for the common variety product that had been extracted since 2019. According to Marsh, the company made the payment on Jan. 31. Simultaneously, RMI submitted a modification to their plan of operations to the federal agency.
Operations at the mine have ceased, but that is likely due to RMI not filing for an exemption (which it typically has) under Garfield County’s special use permit which restricts production during the winter months to protect wildlife passage.
GSCA noted that some equipment has been removed from the mining site. But BLM relayed to The Sun that it has not requested or required RMI to remove any equipment.
State decision
The three permitting agencies, BLM, the state and Garfield County, all have designated boundaries of operation inconsistent with each other, explained Peterson. The BLM permit includes 15.9 acres, whereas the state recognizes 38 acres.
The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) confirmed the inconsistency, “which is an uncommon occurrence,” the agency noted in an email to The Sun.
In the midst of everything, on Jan. 29, RMI filed a technical revision request through DRMS to expand the state boundary by 18.1 acres. Once GSCA was aware, it implored the state to deny the technical revision request and require that it be filed as a permit amendment request, which, conversely, requires public input.
The state responded to the request as GSCA had hoped by way of a letter to RMR Aggregates, Inc. (a subsidiary of RMI) on Feb. 7. Essentially it stated that an increase in acreage requires the amendment process. Thus, DRMS denied the technical revision request. Notably, DRMS had been expecting the request to outline plans for rock bolting, due to the rockslide at the quarry in 2023.
“TR-8 [technical revision] requests a modification unrelated to the communications between DRMS and RMR related to rock bolting and the associated financial warranty,” the letter from DRMS read. “While TR-8 asserts that rock bolting may not be necessary long term if additional mining occurs, the Division stands firm that rock bolting is the only feasible option at this time for highwall stabilization.”
The letter further insisted that RMR resolve its plans of operation with BLM and establish “legal right of entry for the proposed affected lands,” before it would consider an amendment proposal.
RMI has not responded to The Sopris Sun’s request for comment.