Laserfiche WebLink
BEFORE THE i11INED LAND RECL-AALATION BOARD <br /> STATE OF COLORADO <br /> FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LMV, AND ORDER <br /> IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SUNRISE MINING, LLC FOR <br /> AN AMENDED 112d-2 RECLAMATION PERMIT, File No. M-1981-185 <br /> THIS I1LATTER came before the Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Board") on <br /> December I3, 2017 in Denver for a hearing to consider the application for an <br /> amended 112d-2 reclamation permit filed by Sunrise dining, LLC ("Applicant"), file <br /> number M-1981-185. Lucas West and First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Fugate <br /> appeared on behalf of the Division of Reclamation. Alining 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 A1-1981-185 ("Application") for a site known as <br /> the May Day Idaho Complex, located in section 28, Township 36 North, Range 11 <br /> West, loth 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 objectoro failed to participate in the <br /> prehearing conference and, therefore. Iost 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 /> Y The Division was advisory stall'to the Board, not a part", in this proceeding. <br />