Laserfiche WebLink
. ~'rc' -~ <br />RECEIVED <br />nuc ~ ~ 200 v <br />BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />STATE OF COLORADO uiwsw~~ ~~ ~~raamati0n, <br />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 .-~"~"tGD <br />DIVISION DETERMINATION REJECTING DESIGNATED MINING OPERATION 31QQ~' <br />STATUS FOR THE SM-18 MINE, FILE NUMBER M-1978-116 PTV ? a6on. <br />~ of ~d sa ety <br />Minis <br />APPELLANTS' RESPONSE TO DATA SUTTED BY COTTER <br />REGARDING THE JD-6, JD-8, JD-9 RANIUM 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") March, 2006 final Office <br />determination upholding the July, 2005 finding that the JD-6, JD-8, and JD-9 mines are <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 Aprit 12, 2006 Mined Land Reclamation Boazd ("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 />argument and evidence from state and federal project files that span some thirty-plus years 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 Boazd ruled in favor of granting intervention. The Board subsequently <br />entered an order fornrally granting intervention on September 13, 2006. <br />