Laserfiche WebLink
16. March 24`h, 2006 ) <br />COTTER CORPORATION ...File No. M-1977-306 <br />P. O. Box 700 <br />Nucla, CO 81424 <br />Notice of Determination OfDesiQnated Minine Oneration Status <br />Cotter Corporation <br />Re: JD-9 Mine, Permit No. M-1977-306, Determination Of Designated Mining Operation Status <br />Pursuant to Hard Rock /Metals Rule 7.2.4 (a), The Division of Minerals and Geology hereby posts the <br />following Notice of Final Decision in the Monthly Agenda. <br />On July 27, 2005 the Division of Minerals and Geology noticed Cotter Corporation of an initial finding <br />that the JD-9 Mine fits the definition of a Designated Mining Operation (DMO) per Rule 7.2.1(1) of <br />the Hard Rock Rules and Regulations. The initial finding was based on SPLP test results that showed <br />toxic-forming materials were present in the waste rock and ore that is being deposited at the surface of <br />the operation. <br />Cotter Corporation notified the Division within 30 days on August 26, 2005 that it disputed the initial <br />findings and requested time to develop information and facts to support its case in accordance to Rule <br />7.2.4(1). The Division on September 2, 2005 acknowledged the dispute claim and set an initial date of <br />October 17, 2005 for submission of information and facts for Division review in the matter. Several <br />meetings, delays and extensions by both parties to collect and clarify the modeling reports and other <br />parameters lead to a final report being submitted to the Division on February 8, 2006. <br />The Division Staff has carefully reviewed the reports and modeling concerning the JD-9 Mine. The <br />Division finds that Cotter Corporation has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the operation is a <br />Non-DMO. Underground mining operations and deposition of materials on the surface appeaz to create <br />the potential to impact the perched aquifer in the Salt Wash sandstone units. Although the aquifer is of <br />poor quality, the operator and the Division have a responsibility to ensure the water quality is not <br />diminished any further than what naturally occurs. Therefore, the Division affirms its initial <br />designation of the JD-9 as a DMO. <br />Per Rule 7.2.4(1)(b), Cotter Corporation may appeal this decision to the Board. At an appeal hearing, <br />the burden of proof to reverse the Office's determination shall be upon the operator. <br />