Laserfiche WebLink
J' wl I !~° `tit ~. /, <br />/ /~ ,4E FIVE"D <br />(~/ 1 ~ UG 1 7 2007 <br />BEFORE T MI ED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />~rAT O COLORADO /I uiwsio~~ ~~ ~eaamation, <br />~ ~~^/~/~ 7~- ~~ ~n ~~v/Nf~ /~_~~ Mining and Safety <br />IN THE MATTER'OF COTTER CORPORATION'S APPEAL OF FINAL <br />DETERMINATION OF DESIGNATED MINING OPERATION STATUS FOR THE JD-6, JD- <br />8, AND JD-9 URANIUM MINES, FILE NUMBERS M-1977-310, M-1984-014, M-1977-306, <br />and <br />IN THE MATTER OF ENERGY MINERALS LAW CENTER'S APPEAL OF FINAL <br />DIVISION DETERMINATION REJECTING DESIGNATED MINING OPERATION <br />STATUS FOR THE SM-18 MINE, FILE NUMBER M-1978-116 ~ <br />AP_PELLANTC° RRCPONSF TO DATA SUBMITTED BY COTTER <br />REGARDING THE JD-6, JD-8, JD-9 URANIUM MINES <br />Through undersigned counsel, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Information Network for Responsible <br />Mining (INFORM), and the Colorado Environmental Coalition (collectively "intervenors") <br />hereby file this response to data submitted by Cotter on July 17, 2007 that Cotter relies upon to <br />challenge the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety's ("DBMS") Mazch, 2006 final Office <br />determination upholding the July, 2005 finding that the JD-6, JD-8, and JD-9 mines aze <br />"designated mining operations" ("DMO") under the Mined Land Reclamation Act ("MLRA") <br />and applicable Mined Land Reclamation Board ("MLRB") Rules. <br />Procedural Background <br />The Final DBMS determination of DMO status for JD-6, JD-8 and JD-9 mines was noticed as a <br />"Final Decision" in the April 12, 2006 Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Boazd") agenda. <br />Notice of a public heazing on the Cotter appeals was noticed in the June 2006 Board agenda. <br />Intervenors have participated in the DBMS decisionmaking process regarding these three mines, <br />supporting its position in writing based on a review of the evidence in the project file, facts <br />revealed by public records, and applicable laws. The Intervenors' January 27, 20061etter <br />regazding the correctness of the DRMS's findings of DMO status was supported with legal <br />azgument and evidence from state and federal project files that span some thirty-plus yeazs of <br />reports and inspections. <br />In August 2006, the Board reviewed briefing and held a hearing on Intervenor's motion to <br />participate, at which the Board ruled in favor of granting intervention. The Board subsequently <br />entered an order formally granting intervention on September 13, 2006. <br />