Laserfiche WebLink
~~/~~f <br />t/ ~ <br />Means, George (Russ) M-197 7- 3 o C, S D- `1 i''r.;v~.-. <br />-~= , <br />From: Cheryl A. Linden [cheryl.linden@state.co.us] <br />Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:38 AM `~ <br />To: russ.means/@state.co.us R~CE~YE~ <br />Subject: Fwd: Re: Cotter DM,O~Hearings L Y <br />Attachments: Pearson Declaration - Draft.pdf A~G ~ ] Z~()6 <br />Dmaion of Minerals end GeaWpy <br />Here's Jeff Parson's email and attachment. <br />»> "Jeff Parsons" <wmap@igc.org> 8/2/2006 2:11 PM »> <br />Counsel - my original email of 7/26/06 did not get through to Cotter Corp.'s counsel John Watson due to a <br />change in his email address. Pasted below is my original email, with attachment. <br />Given that the MLRB hearing is scheduled for two weeks from now, I would appreciate a response on this matter <br />as soon as possible. thanks. <br />Dear Counsel - <br />We have recently received in the mail the official notices setting the Cotter uranium mines matters <br />before the MLRB in August. The notices state the Board will consider our intervention in Cotter's <br />appeal of the non-DMO designations for JD-6, JD-8, and JD-g, and also whether/when to <br />schedule a merits hearing on our SM-18 appeal. <br />With respect to Cotter's appeal, as I indicated to the Board at the June hearing (reiterating what I <br />understood Mr. Powell to say) intervention should be granted in this matter. A denial of <br />intervention based on aoverly-technical reading of the MLRB rules may put intervenors in the <br />untenable position under the MLRB regulations of not being able to effectively challenge a division <br />or MLRB finding of non-DMO status. Our position is that such a result would contravene <br />the Colorado APA by denying us a right to participate administratively. <br />Further, we believe there should be little dispute as to Intervenors' ability to satisfy the "adversely <br />affected" standard. Intervenor groups have members and staff that regularly use and enjoy the <br />lands and resources impacted by the JD and SM-18 mines. Please see the attached draft <br />declaration as an offer of proof as to the type of testimony we are prepared to offer. As such, <br />we propose that both Cotter and DMG stipulate to Intervenors' participation in the JD mines matter <br />as a party. <br />If a stipulation on intervention can be reached, I further propose that, consistent with the <br />consensus reached at the June MLRB meeting, we agree to keep these two appeals together in <br />the process. As such, the proposed hearing on SM-18 scheduled in August would be stayed until <br />the issues with the JD mines are worked out at which time any remaining appeals would proceed. <br />Please advise on these matters as soon as possible. If we can agree in principle, we can talk <br />about how much time Cotter needs to gather its additions! information on the JD mines for <br />purposes of further scheduling. <br />One last issue regarding process, I would like to propose that going forward any <br />documents submitted to the DMG by either Cotter or Appellants/Intervenors regarding the SM-18, <br />JD-6, JD-8, and JD-9 mines be copied to all parties, whether email or hard copy. We believe this <br />should include communication between the Division and Cotter regarding recently proposed <br />monitoring well placement, or other work plans on site. <br />If such an agreement cannot be reached, the State should consider this email as an <br />updated CORA request for any public documents regarding these mines submitted or otherwise <br />made publicly available regarding these mines since the June 14 hearing. <br />Thanks, I look forward to your responses. <br />8/3/2006 <br />