Laserfiche WebLink
Rationale for Conditional Approval of CN -01 <br />May Day Idaho Mine Complex, M- 1981 -185 <br />generate an adequate work plan was restricted by the cease and desist orders, the absence of <br />an approved permit for illegally affected areas, and the inability to utilize the illegal road for <br />vehicular access. However, the Applicant has committed to fully address all adequacy issues <br />through follow -up Technical Revisions and /or Amendments, to occur subsequent to the <br />approval and issuance of CN -01. The Applicant has agreed to defer all mining and milling <br />activities until all adequacy issues have been resolved through the appropriate processes <br />provided in the Act and Rules. On October 24, 2011, the Division completed its review of the <br />submitted materials and determined the Applicant had minimally addressed the requirements <br />of §34 -32- 115(4) C.R.S. Therefore, on October 24, 2011, the Division issued its <br />recommendation for approval with conditions. <br />Issues Raised by the Objecting Parties and Commenting Agencies <br />The issues raised by the objecting parties and commenting agencies are represented by italic <br />bold font. The last names of the objecting parties who raised the issue are listed after the <br />issue. The Division's response follows in standard font. <br />1. Concerns regarding the history of violations and character of the Applicant. Concerns <br />regarding the Division rewarding a repeat offender by granting a permit. Concerns <br />regarding the Applicant attaining a permit before remediating the environmental <br />impacts already incurred. Concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Division's <br />enforcement actions and civil penalties. Concerns regarding the payment of the civil <br />penalties. Concerns regarding the granting of a permit to a repeat offender will result <br />in additional environmental degradation, damage to the neighboring lands, and an <br />unwarranted financial burden on State and Federal regulators, and the public. <br />(Aweida, Banton, Barfoot, Collignon, Fagerlin, Filler, Giovanniello, Greaves, Harshman, <br />Holland, Hughes, Karls, Kingsley, Kraus, Linden, Nowakowski, Olson, Palazzolo, Peters, <br />Peterson, Perkins, Polich, Renfro, Sands, Steele, Vigil, and Willis) <br />The Act and Rules provide reclamation requirements to ensure affected lands are reclaimed to <br />a beneficial use. The Act and Rules provide performance standards and environmental <br />protection requirements, which apply throughout the life of a permitted operation. When the <br />Division discovers an unpermitted operation the Office schedules the issue for consideration by <br />the Board, whereby the offending operator may be ordered to comply with the requirements of <br />the Act and Rules. Typically, this includes the submittal of a permit application to be reviewed <br />by the Office for adequacy with the requirements of the Act and Rules. The issuance of a <br />permit brings the operation under the enforcement authority of the Division and obligates the <br />operator to comply with the Act and Rules. Any operator of a permitted operation is obligated <br />to protect off -site areas from damage. Thus, the issuance of a permit is not a reward for illegal <br />actions, but part of a process whereby the performance standards, environmental protection <br />measures and reclamation requirements of the Act and Rules may be applied. The <br />environmental cost to society of an unpermitted operation exceeds that of a permitted <br />operation. <br />5 <br />