NEDERLAND — The Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) held a March 18 public hearing regarding Grand Island Resources’ (GIR) request to amend their Designated Mining Operation (DMO) conversion application for resuming mining operations at the Cross Gold Mine located three miles above Nederland.

After weighing the testimony provided, the Board voted to deny GIR’s request to allow an amendment application to their DMO conversion application.

That leaves the mine operator with two options: Bring their original DMO application to public hearing during the next meeting of the MLRB on May 20, or to completely withdraw their application and enter the final reclamation stage for the Cross Mine.   

The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety had determined in February of 2022 that the Cross Mine met the definition of a DMO, a designation that allows the mine to operate, using chemicals for metallurgical processing on-site, under regulations and oversight.

An inside view of the Cross Gold Mine which is located three miles above Nederland.

Photo by Christopher Kelley

After a cease and desist order was lifted the following year—originally imposed due to excessive traces of copper and lead found in the watershed—GIR were given 180 days to submit a new DMO application for the mine. After two extensions were granted, the end date for submission was moved up to January, 2025. 

The application was finally submitted in February of 2025, which prompted a period of public notice, during which 427 comments of objection to the application came in from City of Boulder and Boulder County residents, agencies, and leadership. 

The Division, through two different adequacy reviews, gave GIR the opportunity to reconcile 230 items flagged to be addressed. GIR submitted their response to the first review in August, though it was noted that GIR made a small increase to the proposed permitting acreage—from 205 to 210 acres—in their DMO application. 

When they submitted their response to the second adequacy review in January of this year, GIR had again changed the proposed permitting acreage in their application, this time indicating a major decrease from 210 to 84 acres. Additionally, the proposed duration for mining operations at the Cross Mine was decreased from 50 years to just five years. 

Inside the Cross Gold Mine.

Photo by Christopher Kelley

Immediately following this response, the Division released a letter to GIR stating that such egregious changes to the DMO application will require an amendment, to be subjected to a public hearing and review process by the MLRB.

GIR requested the hearing, and over the course of February other entities submitted their requests to participate. On the day of the hearing, Richard Mittasch and Ben Langenfeld were present to represent GIR; also present were Kate Dunlap, the Drinking Water Quality Manager for the City of Boulder and Erin Dodge, the Water Quality Program Manager for Boulder County. 

There were no representatives from the Town of Nederland present for the public hearing on the amendment application. 

Langenfeld, who is with the law firm Lewicki & Associates representing GIR, provided clarity as to why the proposed permitting acreage was changed, stating that GIR felt that the “immense” size of their “operation totality” was the reason for the District’s scrutiny levied against their previous application. 

GIR determined that, because a majority of the permitting acreage is not planned to be “targeted” immediately, they should adjust their DMO application to include only what is planned to be mined over the next five years. 

“Our goal in doing this was to narrow the focus of the conversion application to the immediate mine and its environmental protection plans,” Langenfeld explained. 

GIR’s request to the MLRB was to authorize the amendment to the conversion application, authorize another period of public notice and comment submission due to the application being amended, and “recognize that the amendment establishes a new statutory review timeline for Division consideration.” 

The request to establish a new timeline for the DMO application—which would be legally required if the Board were to accept the amendment—is a strategy seemingly in direct response to the Division’s determination, made back in April of 2024, after a second extension had been granted to GIR.

It was specifically stated that “no additional time for Division consideration of the DMO application will be granted,” after the final deadline of January 17, 2025, and that if GIR failed to meet that deadline, or if the application failed to pass, “the life of the mine shall be ended and (GIR) must begin final reclamation.” 

The City of Boulder was the first objector to submit testimony during the hearing, with outside counsel stating, on behalf of the City, its intention to remain on the “issue at hand,” (the amendment application) and allowing GIR an opportunity to extend their application deadline. 

Counsel surmised that GIR’s failure to produce any legal rights to much of the mining claims they wish to have permitted for operations is more likely the reason why the proposed permitting acreage was changed on the DMO application. 

Dunlap then presented the City’s case for denying GIR’s amendment, reiterating that the proposed operations directly affect both North Boulder Creek and Barker Reservoir, which accounts for two-thirds of the City’s drinking water supply. 

“GIR proposes significant threats to the water supplies serving nearly 200,000 residents, commuters, and visitors to the City of Boulder,” Dunlap said. “Impacts to water supplies can result in the need to temporarily shut down our drinking water intakes, additional water quality testing, increased water treatment cost, higher utility billing rates for our customers, potential taste and odor issues in drinking water, and challenges complying with Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory requirements. 

“The applicant has not corrected the errors that have already been identified in adequacy reviews,” Dunlap continued, “and the application submittals to date have been internally inconsistent, factually incorrect, confusing, incomplete, and unnecessarily lengthy and complicated.”

Dodge, representing Boulder County, first addressed the positive and negative impacts of the area’s mining history, noting the old, inefficient infrastructure that has been exposed and disrupted over time due to natural erosion, as well as mentioning the complications that come attached to the County’s own Superfund site, the Captain Jack mine, despite the additional government oversight and funds directed at the sight. 

“The groundwater network in the mountain areas is very complex and also serves as the primary drinking water source for a lot of our community members, as a lot of people up in that area are on wells,” Dodge explained, before describing the County’s reasons for denying GIR’s amendment application. 

“The applicant's history of permit violations, cease and desists, and recent challenges adhering to the required permitting process during inactive mining raises concerns that the operators have the capacity to provide proper environmental protections required to minimize the impacts from active mining,” Dodge said. 

Those concerns were listed to include GIR’s ability to handle the burden of reclamation and remediation and the change from inactive to active mining disrupting surface and ground water flows. Further, the original application contained “vague” information about underground workings and hydrologic connections, and there was also a lack of proper 3D modeling of the proposed subsurface mine workings.

“Staff has approved amendments for our largest mines in half the time with far more technical issues involved,” said a representative of the Division before the MLRB made their final decision. “Some of GIR’s issues are complex, but we’re also talking about straightforward technical issues such as legal right of entry, mapping discrepancies, and repeated unclear responses to some of our adequacy reviews.”

“What they’re proposing should have been put before you initially rather than introduced in the 11th month of a 12-month period at the end of a four-year process.” 

A door at the Cross Gold Mine near Nederland.

Photo by Christopher Kelley