Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENT A <br /> Page 5of9 <br /> multiple ore stockpiles, the storage and use of cyanide solution, and the operational <br /> nature of the milling equipment. Division staff also provided testimony regarding <br /> the activities at the site demonstrating that the mill was active,including playing a <br /> video from YouTube that showed the site engaged in milling,with shaker tables in <br /> use and the flow of concentrate through the process. <br /> 16. The Division also presented its legal analysis on the Board's and <br /> Division's jurisdiction over milling, stating that milling is expressly included in the <br /> Aces definition of"Mining Operation,"with no distinction between an on-site or off- <br /> site mill. Rather, the Act's definition of"Affected Land"refers back to"Mining <br /> Operation"to make clear that the existence of a Mining Operation, as defined by <br /> the Act, creates Affected Land. Thus, a mill is a Mining Operation under the Act <br /> that requires a reclamation permit prior to commencement of operation. The <br /> Division presented several examples of previous and currently permitted mills that <br /> were not physically located at a mine but were treated as Mining Operations under <br /> the Act and required to obtain reclamation permits. The Division explained that <br /> the Mining Operation observed would meet the definition of a Designated Mining <br /> Operation under Rule 1.1(20)of the Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Mined <br /> Land Reclamation Board for Hardrock,Metal and Designating Mining Operations <br /> (the "Rules")_ <br /> 17. At the hearing, Operator also presented testimony regarding the site. <br /> Operator argued that it was not required to obtain a reclamation permit, claiming <br /> that"offsite process"is exempt from the Act. Mr. Emsile argued that the intent of <br /> the Act was to return mined land to a beneficial use and, according to Mr. Emsile, <br /> mills that are separate from an excavation do not have"mined land." Mr.Emsile <br /> admitted that the site had processed up to 20 tons of tailings,though he stated that <br /> the goal was to"clean up" mine sites. According to Operator, they are not governed <br /> by the Act because they are not on"Affected Land." <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> 18. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Mined <br /> Land Reclamation Act,Article 32 of Title 34, C.R.S. (2021). <br /> 19. "`Mining Operation'means the development or extraction of a <br /> mineral from its natural occurrences on affected land...The term`mining <br /> operations'also includes the following operations on affected lands: <br /> transportation; concentrating; milling;evaporation; and other processing." § 34- <br /> 32-103(8), C.R.S. (2021). "Mining Operation"includes milling operations on <br /> affected lands. <br /> Rocky Flats Environmental Solutions,LLC <br /> M-2020-044 <br /> MV-2022-012 4 <br />