Laserfiche WebLink
BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAlIMATI0N BOARD <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER <br />IN THE IVIATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SUNRISE MINING, LLC FOR <br />AN AMENDED 112d-2 RECL01ATION PERMIT, File No. RM -1981-185 <br />THIS MATTER came before the Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Board") on <br />December 13, 2017 in Denver for a hearing to consider the application for an <br />amended 112d-2 reclamation permit filed by Sunrisc \Mining, LLC ("Applicant"), file <br />number IIM-1981-185. Lucas West and First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Fugate <br />appeared on behalf of the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety ("Division"). <br />Christopher J. Neumann, Esq. and Sara Glinatsis appeared on behalf of Applicant. <br />There were no appearances on behalf of any of the objectors. <br />The Board, having considered the presentations, testimony, and evidence of <br />the Division' and Applicant, and being otherwise fully informed of the facts in the <br />matter, enters the following: <br />FINDINGS OF FACT <br />1. On March 27, 2017, Applicant filed a 112d-2 amendment application <br />with the Division for file number M-1981-185 ("Application") for a site known as <br />the May Day Idaho Complex, located in section 28, Township 36 North, Range 11 <br />West, 101h Principal Meridian in La Plata County, Colorado. <br />2. During the required period of notice of the Application filing, the <br />Division received written comments and objections to the Application. <br />3. On November 20, 2017 after issuing three adequacy reviews, the <br />Division issued its rationale and recommendation to approve the Application. <br />Applicant addressed all of the Division's adequacy issues to the Division's <br />satisfaction. <br />4. On November 29, 2017, the Board, through a prehearing officer, <br />conducted a prehearing conference. Two objectors failed to participate in the <br />prehearing conference and, therefore, lost status as a parties in this matter. <br />5. The prehearing officer issued a draft prehearing order. Among other <br />things, the draft prehearing order identified two issues for the parties to present to <br />the Board for consideration_ At the hearing, the Board considered the draft <br />I The Division was advisory staff to the Board, not a party, in this proceeding. <br />