Laserfiche WebLink
FOGNANI &FAUGHT,PLLC <br />Mr. Allen C. Sorenson Alroiners 71 La <br />April 15, 2009 <br />Page 6 <br />the DRMS must determine whether the proposed activities are "Prospecting" or "Mining." <br />These activities are not mining - they are not being conducted as the immediate prelude to the <br />extraction and production of minerals, but instead are exploratory in nature. Any activity prior to <br />the development activities necessary to conduct mining operations is "Prospecting" and may be <br />conducted under a Notice of Intent. <br />Additional Issues Requiring; a Brief Response <br />The Western Mining Action Project claims that the MLRB was required by C.R.S. § 34- <br />42-116(7)0) to consult with the local Board of County Commissioners regarding the Powertech <br />Notice of Intent. This is a baseless argument and cannot be characterized in any other way but <br />misleading. The clear language of the statute shows that this requirement applies only to an <br />application for a reclamation plan, which is not required at the prospecting stage. See C.R.S. § <br />43-32-113(1). The general language in Section 113 of the Act stating that the Notice of Intent <br />should include measures to be taken to reclaim any affected land consistent with the <br />requirements of Section 116 of the Act cannot be taken to convert the very limited requirements <br />for the Notice of Intent into the far more detailed, comprehensive, and onerous requirements for <br />an application for a Reclamation Permit. <br />Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. We look forward to a <br />continued dialogue with DRMS about the Centennial Project and to a process that is fair and <br />balanced. Additional information about the technical aspects of the proposed aquifer well <br />pumping test and other prospecting activities is being provided in a separate but <br />contemporaneously filed letter. We believe the approach set forth herein will serve to put the <br />technical issues raised in the proper context. We do not however, believe any further technical <br />concession or undertaking is required by law nor should our willingness to address on a <br />voluntary basis the issues raised in comments at this point establish any precedent for future <br />purposes. <br />Very truly yours, <br />D. Fognani <br />f Fognani & Faught, PLLC <br />cc: Mr. Richard C. Clement <br />Mr. Richard Blubaugh