Laserfiche WebLink
RECEIVED <br />AUG 14 2006 <br />Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining and Safety <br />BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />Case No. Permit Nos. M-1977-310,i1Y1-1984-014, and M-1977-306 <br />;~_y,~.~,., <br />F». <br />AUG. 0 ~ tai :'~ <br />fr8nd Junction @i~ <br />RESPONSE TO ENERGY MINERALS LAW CENTER'S MOTION TO INTERVENE <br />t ~ .-- - - ._ --- _ - <br />Cotter Corporation: JD-6, JD-8 and JD-9 Mines <br />The Division of Minerals and Geology ("Division") hereby responds to the Motion to <br />Intervene as follows: <br />1. In July 2005, the Division found that all four Cotters mines (JD-6, JD-8, JD-9 and SM- l8) <br />were designated mining operations ("DMOs). <br />2. Pursuant to Hard Rock Rule 7.2.4, Cotter appealed to the Division concerning the DMO <br />designations. Under this rule, the Division is required to meet with the applicant/operator <br />and give the applicant/operator an opportunity to demonstrate that the mines are not DMOs. <br />After several continuances to allow Cotter Corporation to present evidence to the <br />Division, the Division issued its final determinations concerning DMO status in March 2006. <br />See 2 CCR 407-1, Rule 7.2.4(I)(a). The Division affirmed its determination that the JD-6, 8 <br />and 9 mines were DMOs. The Division found SM-18 to be a non-DMO. <br />4. Cotter Corporation has filed an appeal of the DMO determinations for the JD-6, 8 and 9 <br />mines. <br />5. Energy Minerals Law Center ("EMLC") represents three entities: San Juan Citizens <br />Alliance, Information Network for Responsible Mining, and Colorado Environmental <br />Coalition. EMLC has filed a Motion to Intervene in the appeal filed by Cotter Corporation <br />concerning the DMO determinations. <br />6. The rules and regulations pertaining to DMOs do not specifically address whether an <br />entity such as EMLC can intervene in an appeal filed by an applicant\operator regarding the <br />Division's determination of DMO status for a mine site. See specifically, 2 CCR 407-1, Rule <br />7.2.4(1)(b). Arguably, EMLC's clients are not aggrieved since they agree with the <br />~ EMLC has also filed an appeal of the Division's determination that the SM-18 mine is a <br />non-DMO. 2 CCR 407-1, Rule 7.2.7 (Any person that may be aggrieved by an Office <br />decision as to DMO status may appeal that determination to the Board). See also, Rule <br />L4.11 concerning appeals of Office determinations. <br />