2012-02-29_REVISION - M1978039HR (3)

Home Browse Search

Page 7 of 9 Division should coordinate with the federal agencies and should not act until "all relevant impact reviews have been accomplished." See September 2011 Letter, 1; August 2009 Letter, 6. The Division's Response: The Division reviews an EPP Amendment to ensure that it complies with the applicable provisions of the Act and the Rules, not BLM's NEPA process. Nevertheless, the Division has discussed the EPP Amendment with BLM's staff at the Tres Rios Field Office regularly and frequently and has coordinated regulatory efforts with BLM to the greatest extent possible in accordance with the MOU. The Division has gathered valuable input from BLM. For example, the Division concurred with BLM's desire for more rigorous groundwater monitoring and incorporated requirements for additional monitoring well locations into the EPP. The Division will continue to communicate with BLM throughout the life of the permit. If any additional issues are identified through the federal NEPA analyses, the Division will work with the Operator and BLM to update the EPP where appropriate. The Objectors incorrectly assert that the mine site lies within the Department of Energy's ULP. All boundaries of the Sunday Mine Complex lie within 10,000 feet distance south of County Road 20 R in T44N, R18W. The Division obtained a map of ULP lands from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that clearly indicates the Sunday Mine Complex is not near any ULP tract. Thus, the PEIS is not relevant to the Division's consideration of this EPP Amendment. Permit has been in Temporary Cessation Too Long (C.R.S. $ 34- 32- 103(6)(a)(III), and Rule 1.13.9) 9. Objection: The Sunday Mines have been in Temporary Cessation since 1999, in violation of the Act's requirement that "in no case shall temporary cessation of production be continued for more than ten years without terminating the operation and fully complying with the reclamation standards of this article." C.R.S. § 34-32-103(6)(a)(1 1I). September 2011 Letter, 2; August 2011 Letter, 3. The Division's Response: The Objectors are misinformed. The Operator is in full compliance with C.R.S. § 34- 32- 103(6)(a)(III), and Rule 1.13.9. The St. Jude Mine was in active operation from 2007 -2009. During this period of time, the Operator engaged in activities consistent with the definition of active mining and inconsistent with the regulatory factors indicating that TC is appropriate. See C.R.S. § 34 -32- 103(8); Rules 1.1(31) and 1.13.2. Specifically, the Operator produced and shipped 5,000 tons of ore in 2007, 13,000 tons of ore in 2008, and 17,500 tons of ore in 2009. See 2007, 2008, and 2009 Annual Reports. In May 2010, the Operator submitted "Revision TC -2" informing the Division that active operations had ceased on November 30, 2009 and requesting the Division's approval to re -enter TC. The Division approved Revision TC -2 on June 30, 2010, While the Act and the Rules provide that TC cannot "be continued for more than ten years," they do not prohibit operators from re- entering TC after a reasonable period of active operations. Furthermore, the Objectors are time - barred from raising objections to the status of the operation. The Rules provide that parties who are adversely affected or aggrieved by a Division decision must appeal that decision to the Board with certain prescribed time periods. Here, the applicable time period was thirty days. See Rule 1.4.11. The Objectors failed to request a Board hearing regarding the Division's approval of Revision TC -2 and raised their concerns to the Division over a year after the applicable limitations period had run. B. ISSUES NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD