Laserfiche WebLink
Mine that will enable it to replace Henderson's role as Phelps Dodge's primary source of high <br />quality molybdenum concentrate, and the Henderson Mine will shift to the role of swing <br />producer. In the meantime, planning and permitting activities to enable the Climax Mine to <br />operate as a swing producer for chemical application uses in the near term, and as a <br />replacement to the Henderson Mine in the long term, are ongoing, along with continuing <br />reclamation activities. <br />DMG and AGO Review and Analysis <br />C.R.S. 34-32-116(7)(q) provides: <br />All reclamation provided for in this section shall be carried to completion by the operator with <br />all reasonable diligence and shall be conducted concurrently with mining operations to the <br />extent practicable, taking into consideration the mine plan, mine safety, economics, the <br />availability of equipment and material, and other site specific conditions relevant and unique to <br />the affected land and to the postmining land use. Upon termination of the entire mining <br />operation and in accordance with the reclamation plan, each phase of final reclamation shall <br />be completed prior to the expiration of five yeazs after the date on which the operator advises <br />the boazd that such phase has commenced, unless such period is extended by the boazd pursuant <br />to section 34-32-112 (7). (Emphasis added) <br />This statute was enacted with the passage of S.B. 91-177. Climax Molybdenum Company and the <br />AGO have reseazched the legislative history of S.B. 91-177, and have concluded that the Bill was <br />intended to create an exemption from the temporary cessation provisions of the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Act. The exemption applies to mining operations that aze not producing ore but aze <br />conducting ongoing reclamation and still contain a viable mineral reserve. <br />In testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, Fred Banta, then director of MLRD (DMG) <br />made the following statement in response to questioning about the meaning of the phrase "upon <br />termination of the entire mining operation" in S.B. 91-177: <br />I can tell you how I think this "concurrent" is working right here and maybe that would help. <br />The way I see this provision is that the operator, at the time they submit a permit application to <br />the state, they make the demonstration that they are going to comply with the law, and part of <br />[the law] says "operations aze to be conducted concurrently with mining operations." I see that <br />as an obligation on the part of the operator to demonstrate that his reclamation will be done <br />concurrently with mining. We review the permit application. If there is some reason it cannot <br />be done concurrently, as stated in the exceptions there, such as some aspect of the mine plan, <br />mine safety, economics, etc., they would have to address those at the time of, that they submit <br />their application. If the state found that that in fact is true, then we would make a finding or <br />recommendation to the Boazd to approve the permit. If we thought that was not a good basis <br />on which to be exempt from concurrent reclamation, they wouldn't get the permit. It would <br />need to be modified. There would be concurrent reclamation going on at the site but when they <br />had gotten to the point where they had done the extraction, then they would have five years in <br />which to do, to complete all the reclamation.... <br />