Laserfiche WebLink
I. THE BOARD MAY NOT PROPERLY CONSIDER ISSUES RAISED BY <br />APPELLANT RELATED TO FEDERAL STATUTES <br />Appellant makes reference in its "Factual Background" to several irrelevant matters. It is <br />irrelevant whether and to what extent any of the actions of any federal agency undertaken <br />pursuant to the referenced federal statutes (i.e., the National Environmental Policy Act, the <br />Endangered Species Act, Departrnent ofEnergy, Bureau ofLand Management, Mine Safety and <br />Health Administration) affect, or do not affect, Cotter's operations. These proceedings are solely <br />focused on a determination by a state agency pursuant to the MLRA. <br />II. COTTER'S LEASES ARE CURRENT <br />. The Appellant also misstates the current status of Cotter's federal mineral leases. <br />Importantly, and to avoid any confusion, the Appellant misstates the facts. At page 3 of its Brief, <br />the Appellant states that, "The term of the 19961ease has expired and, based on information and <br />belief, no valid lease exists for the SM-18 mine." That statement is simply wrong . All of the <br />Department ofEnergy leases related to the SM-18 Mine, and indeed for the JD-6, JD-8, and JD-9 <br />Mines, have been properly renewed and are current. <br />III. THE DIVISION PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT THE SM-18 MINE SHOULD <br />NOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A DESIGNATED MINING OPERATION <br />A. Cotter's submissions and the Division's review support the final determination. <br />The Act at C.R.S. 34-32-103(3.5)(a){II) defines a "designated mining operation" as: "a <br />mining operation at which acid- or toxic-forming materials will be exposed or disturbed as a <br />result of mining operations." The Act at section 34-32-103(1) further defines "acid or toxic <br />producing materials" as "natural or reworked earth materials having acid or toxic chemical and <br />physical characteristics." <br />2 <br />