GENERAL35184

• Permit No: M1977310
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 8/29/2007
• Doc Name: Appeal of designated mining status
• From: DRMS
• To: Various
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman S[., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
~~,~ , i~, ~c s~
~~
B ~a~/o
COLORADO
DIVISION OF
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Russell George
Executive Director
Ronald W. Cattany
Division Director
Natural Resource Trustee
On March 6, 2006 the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety ("DBMS" or "Division") posted in the
April 2006 Mined Land Reclamation Board ("MLRB" or "Board") minutes a finding that the JD-6 Mine met the
requirements for Designated Mining Operation ("DMO") status. The status was upheld pursuant to Rule 7.2.6 (1)
after a review of additional information and data provided by Cotter Corporation ("Cotter") failed to demonstrate
that there was no potential for quantities of contaminates identified in waste and ore rocks to adversely affect
human health, property or the environment. Energy Minerals Law Center ("EMLC") was granted party status as
intervenors to the proceedings by the MLRB on September 13, 2006. On August 15, 2007 EMLC issued a brief
in support of the DMO status and requested the MLRB uphold the DMO status for the JD-6 Mine, operated by
Cotter. Although EMLC supports the Division's position that the JD-6 Mine meets the requirements for DMO
status several of EMLC's statements require clarification or corrections which are noted below. In addition, in
this response DBMS addresses Cotter's June 15, 2007 report to the Division as well as its previously supplied
data.
The Division's Response to the Enerav Minerals Law Center Brief:
EMLC references the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act
("ESA"). NEPA and ESA requirements are administered through the federal agencies with oversight of the
lands. h3 this case the Department of Energy ("DOE") provides such oversight. DBMS does not have jurisdiction
to administer the provisions of NEPA or the ESA. However, the MLRB and DBMS may impose permit
conditions to mitigate potential impacts to threatened and endangered species. See § 34-32-102, C.R.S.; 2 CCR
407-1, Rule 3.1.8.
EMLC cites health concerns for mine workers and recreational users of active and abandoned mines.
Today, the Mine Safety Health Administration ("MSHA") heavily regulates exposures and other health risk to
these workers and the DBMS has no jurisdiction in the regulation or enforcement of such issues
EMLC generalizes site conditions at the JD Complex when the sites actually have unique and important
distinctions. For example, the JD-6 Mine has no dewatering equipment as it is unnecessary at this time.
Erosional features noted in reports by DBMS are pre-law. The erosion is being protected from current on site
activities by berms and grading. In addition, while EMLC argues against the use of water quality standards in its
appeal of the SM-18 findings of Non-DMO status, it freely accepts the standards for the JD-6 Mine and the JD
Complex. t
t Also, it should be noted that EMLC's clients entitle themselves as appellants in the matters of JD 6, 8, and 9. However,
they are not appellants in these matters. Rather, Cotter is the appellant. EMLC's clients are intervenors.
Office of Office of
Mined land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines
SEP ? 2007 ~
Division or Reclamation, `D~F
Mining and Safety ~C'}'f/