You may be right on the scenario you present, and it is a bit dificult imagining the company and its principals not wanting to get the permit. While a level of detail and experience with Colorado may be required for a definitive judgement, there may be a different scenario.
1. First , almost any mine that has had production before in the current regulatory environment will require clean up from prior operators . ( At the extreme one has the Superfund legislaton).
2. A lot depends on relationship with regulators, and state regulators easier to deal with than federal ones.It would surprise me that the required changes were "out of the blue", though of coruse company would put best spin on the situation.
3. Just glancing at the documents I noticed criticism by the state of lack of baseline studies- this is pretty standard stuff.
4. No way Colorado toughest in the nation, California "deserves" that honor.
5. Dealing with water discharge and tailing issues often requires many projects to look at dry stack tailings. No surprise here. That company may have tried to do without one understands, but it shouldn't have been a surprise the requirements for the permit.
Guess someone like NV Taylor coudl provdie a more solid opinion.
The bigger issue though is to meet conditions what financial wherewithal was necessary, and whether it has available to meet their projections. Guess for that we need the 10q to show us what is actually going on. I admit I cant imagine state requiring a dry stack tailings facility, then allowing then to operate before complete and inspected. All this within next 5 months ? Could be , I dont know. I admit my feeling is mill will not be operational and profitable this year.
Just my opinion.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
