2010-03-22_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1977285 (2)

Home Browse Search

;__1 ?? II ?ENISO ?' ?. ?? MINES ??,r?o? Fzea Sa?e??l Q ?\orrg ar Denison Mines (USA) Corp. 105017th Street, Suite 950 Denver, CO 80265 USA Tel : 303 628-7798 Fax : 303 389.4125 www.denisonmines.eom March 18, 2010 iKv A V P 0 ky A-{ WE Ms Jamie Sellar-Baker US Bureau of Land Management M,6M jj (7' kA l-W lei LM 90-' KOM MJ 9, 29211 Hwy. 184 P.O. Box 210 Dolores, Colorado 81323 Re: February 23, 2010 meeting regarding State Director's Remand Decision for Denison's Sunday Mines Surface Plan of Operations (COC 52049 07-1A) Dear Ms. Sellar-Baker. The following letter presents Denison's summary of the Remand Meeting held in the BLM Field Office in Dolores Colorado on February 23, 2010. Denison understood that the primary purpose of the meeting was not only to review the issues and reasons for the Remand decision, but more importantly, to get BLM's specific direction and clarification on Denison's letter of December 22nd, 2009, which addressed the Remand issues and BLM's additional concerns. To date the process for approval of a 2.4 acre waste rock expansion, exploration drilling, and addition of 10 vent holes at the Sunday Mine Complex has taken over three years. We believe that Denison and its technical team have worked diligently, under the specific direction of the BLM, to address all significant issues at the site. We feel that with the inclusion of the Environmental Protection Plan (the "EPP') in BLM's EA, combined with the upcoming installation of groundwater monitoring wells, Denison will have fulfilled its obligations of determining any significant impact of the proposed action as defined by NEPA. Denison came to the Dolores meeting to work with BLM and to review the issues documented by your office and the State Director's office. During the review, at least five additional issues were raised, all of which Denison feels have been addressed in the EA, or the subsequent EPP. Although the discussions were enlightening, some important information included in the EPP, which is essential to addressing BLM's concerns, has not been fully reviewed by all parties in attendance. As stated earlier this process has taken over three years to get to this point. In an effort to bring this to a timely conclusion, while responding to any significant outstanding concerns, Denison suggests that the following actions are undertaken: 1. Once BLM has reviewed the EPP, Denison staff will meet with BLM staff to answer any questions generated by BLM's review of the EPP and once again review Denison's responses to the concerns in the Remand decision. WINVIED MAR L 5 2010 DivkWn of RtAciamatiON, Ill AV19 and Safety