My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-06-21_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2010-06-21_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:13:38 PM
Creation date
8/3/2010 8:21:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
6/21/2010
Doc Name
Response to the Allegations
From
Holme Roberts & Owen LLLp
To
AGO
Email Name
DB2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Cheryl Linden, Esq. <br />June 21, 2010 <br />Page 3 <br />("No acid-forming materials exist onsite. Native rock at the Schwartzwalder <br />Mine is not acid-generating. Instead, it is classified as having a low potential to <br />generate acidic drainage, and no acidic drainage has occurred from the mine or <br />waste rock facilities to date."). While the EPP at 9-49 states that "[w]ater <br />seeping into the upper levels of the mine is impacted by acid rock drainage," <br />seepage does not constitute handling. If DRMS is alleging that "handling" <br />relates to building a pad decades ago, any statute of limitations has long run out <br />on such "handling." The evidence therefore indicates that Cotter has not <br />violated section 34-32-116(7)(c). <br />The second statutory provision cited is "failure to minimize disturbances to the <br />prevailing hydrologic balance of the affected land and of the surrounding area <br />and to the quality of water in the surface and ground water systems after the <br />mining operations and during reclamation," which DRMS alleges is a violation <br />of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-32-116(7)(g). DRMS does not identify the "prevailing <br />hydrologic balance." The prevailing hydrologic balance should be a mine in a <br />flooded, and not a dewatered, state. Section 34-32-116(7)(g) also recognizes <br />that it is not possible as a practical matter to absolutely prohibit disturbances to <br />the hydrologic balance and to water quality. Rather, it prohibits the failure to <br />minimize the disturbance. Since section 34-32-116(7)(g) applies only to <br />"[r]eclamation plans and the implementation thereof," the requirement to <br />minimize the disturbance incorporates standards of reasonableness and <br />practicability, as set forth in the Mined Land Reclamation Act's definition of <br />"reclamation." See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-32-103(13) ("`Reclamation' means <br />the employment during and after a mining operation of procedures reasonably <br />designed to minimize as much as practicable the disruption from the mining <br />operation ....") (emphasis added). <br />Cotter has been working diligently to implement all of its reclamation <br />requirements. These activities have included extensive investigations which <br />are described in various documents, including more recently a Revised <br />Schwartzwalder Mine Surface Hydrology Study for Cotter Corporation by <br />Shephard Miller Inc. on November 19, 1999; a Schwartzwalder Mine <br />Hydrologic Evaluation, prepared for Cotter Corporation by Adrian Brown <br />Consultants in 2000; a Schwartzwalder Mine Hydrologic Evaluation of Mine <br />#1478373 0 den
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.