Laserfiche WebLink
REC~9V~® <br />BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD SEP 1 2 2007' <br />STATE OF COLORADO GRAND JUNCTION FIELD OFFICE <br />DIVISION OF <br />FEN <br />IN THE MATTER OF COTTER CORPORATION'S APPEAL OF FINAL <br />DETERMIN~ON OF DESIGNATED MINING OPERATION STATUS FOR THE JD-6, JD- <br />8, AND JD- URANIUM MINES, FILE NUMBERS M-1977-310, M-1984-014, M-1977-306,/ <br />and <br />IN THE MATTER OF ENERGY MINERALS LAW CENTER'S APPEAL OF FINAL <br />DIVISION DETERMINATION REJECTING DESIGNATED MINING OPERATION <br />STATUS FOR THE SM-18 MINE, FILE NUMBER M-1978-116 <br />APPELLANTS' RESPONSE TO THE DIVISION'S REVIEW OF DATA SUBMITTED <br />BY COTTER REGARDING THE JD-6, JD-8, JD-9 URANIUM MINES <br />Through undersigned counsel, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Information Network for Responsible <br />Mining (INFORM), and the Colorado Environmental Coalition (collectively "Intervenors") <br />hereby file this brief to respond to Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety's ("DBMS") <br />analysis of the cursory data submitted by Cotter on July 17, 2007 that Cotter relies upon to <br />challenge the March, 2006 final Office determination upholding the July 2005, finding that the <br />JD-6, JD-8, and JD-9 mines are "designated mining operations" ("DMO") under the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Act ("MLRA") and applicable Mined Land Reclamation Board ("MLRB") Rules. <br />In short, the DBMS is correct that the data submitted by Cotter cannot support a DBMS reversal <br />of the July 2005 DMO determination. Despite the disagreement between the DBMS and <br />Intervenor regarding the precise contours of the DMO standard contained in the MLRA and the <br />MLRB Rules, there is no dispute that each of the JD mines meet the DMO standard. f <br />Similarly, the data submitted by Cotter cannot support aBoard-granted exemption to the DMO <br />provisions of the MLRA. A few points of clarification are provided in this Response to the <br />Division's Review to help demonstrate that Cotter has not provided sufficient data to support its <br />appeal or to obtain the "DMO-but-Exempt" status that the "appeal" apparently seeks directly <br />from this Board. <br />~ The issue of the DMO standard is addressed more fully in the SM-18 brief filed herewith. To <br />the extent that it is relevant, and to avoid unnecessarily increasing the amount of paper submitted <br />in these proceedings, the SM-18 briefing is incorporated herein by reference. In particular, the <br />MLRA must be read and applied in a manner that gives meaning to both the groundwater <br />standards and the more stringent DMO status provisions. <br />