Laserfiche WebLink
document captioned "Attachment 1," which was a report from Susan Wyman rebutting certain of <br />the Division's testimony from the July 12, 2010 hearing, particularly the technical complexity of <br />the Division's proposed solution and the evidence, or lack thereof, of water from the mine pool <br />reaching Ralston Creek. <br />40. On August 11, 2010, the Board issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, <br />and Order ("Final Order"). (Exhibit C - Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.) The <br />Final Order explicitly stated that the Board refused to consider Attachment 1 to Cotter's response <br />to the Draft Order. (Exh. C, p. 1.) The Board repeatedly acknowledged in the Final Order that <br />evidence on many of the points related to whether water from the mine pool was reaching <br />Ralston Creek was disputed at best. (Exh. C, pp. 4-5.) <br />41. The Board then began making a number of leaps of logic unsupported by the <br />record. For example, the Board stated that the "Division considers the costs of the corrective <br />actions less than the costs of cleaning the water in Ralston Creek and Reservoir" (Exh. C, p. 6), <br />although the Division itself at the hearing evaded the question of relative cost-benefit and the <br />Denver and Arvada witnesses were unable to articulate the costs, if any, attributable to <br />contamination allegedly coming from the Mine's site in general, let alone the mine pool in <br />particular. The Board also made such conclusory statements as the "mine pool is contributing to <br />the contamination of Ralston Creek and Reservoir" (Exh. C, p. 6), even though the Division had <br />disclaimed having any such evidence during the hearing. <br />42. The Final Order concluded by ordering Cotter to reinitiate a water treatment <br />system to treat all water reporting to Sump No. 1 by no later than July 31, 2010 (which Cotter <br />had already complied with by its Technical Revisions Nos. 12 and 13), reinitiate mine <br />dewatering and water treatment "sufficient to bring the mine water table to a level at least 500 <br />feet below the Steve Level, and sufficient to reestablish a hydraulic gradient away from Ralston <br />Creek," to be implemented by August 31, 2010, provide appropriate financial warranties to cover <br />the cost of these changes, and submit a permit amendment to address the EPP and associated <br />financial warranty, as well as imposing the maximum possible civil penalty of $1,000 a day for a <br />total of $55,000, although all but $2,500 would be suspended if Cotter complied with the Final <br />Order's deadlines. (Exh. C, p. 9.) <br />43. On August 31, 2010, Cotter filed a Petition for Reconsideration of Findings of <br />Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order with the Board, pursuant to Rule 2.9, 2 Colo. Code Regs. <br />407-1 ("Petition for Reconsideration"). (Exhibit D - Petition for Reconsideration of Findings of <br />Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.) One effect of filing the Petition for Reconsideration was <br />to toll the time for seeking judicial review. See Rule 2.9.5, 2 Colo. Code Regs. 407-1. <br />44. The Petition for Reconsideration set forth in detail numerous factual and legal <br />defects in the Final Order, including pointing to specific testimony and other evidence in the <br />record that contradicted the Board's conclusions. Also included with the Petition for <br />Reconsideration was a further report from Susan Wyman analyzing the defects of the Division's <br />"pump-and-treat" solution for the mine pool and discussing additional evidence as to why not <br />pumping and treating the mine pool would not pose a threat to Ralston Creek's water quality. In <br />9