Laserfiche WebLink
On August 11, 2010, the Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Board") issued an Order <br />("Order") in which the Board found that Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.) ("Cotter") had violated <br />three provisions of the Mined Land Reclamation Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 34-32-101 to -127, <br />("Act") in connection with the Schwartzwalder Mine ("Mine") in Jefferson County, Colorado. <br />See Administrative Record ("AR"):00845-55. It found that Cotter had failed (1) "to minimize <br />disturbances to the hydrologic balance," Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-32-116(7)(g); (2) "to handle toxic- <br />forming material so as to protect the drainage system from pollution," id. § 34-32-116(7)(c); and <br />(3) "to protect areas outside of the affected land from slides or damage occurring during the <br />mining operation and reclamation," id. § 34-32-116(7)(h). AR:00853. <br />The Order, inter alia, directed Cotter to "reinitiate mine dewatering and water discharge <br />treatment sufficient to bring the mine water table to a level at least 500 feet below the Steve <br />Level, and sufficient to re-establish a hydraulic gradient away from Ralston Creek," and that <br />such "[i]mplementation must occur as soon as possible, but no later than August 31, 2010" <br />(collectively, "Corrective Action No. 2" or "Mine Dewatering and Treatment"). AR 00853. The <br />Order also directed Cotter to provide financial warranty for the Mine Dewatering and Treatment <br />and imposed civil penalties. Id. Cotter here appeals the Order as set forth below and requests <br />that paragraphs 31-33, 36, 39-40, and 43-46, the order to conduct Corrective Action No. 2 with <br />an associated financial warranty, and the civil penalties be held unlawful and set aside by the <br />Court. This Court should also restrain the enforcement of those portions of the Order. <br />STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW <br />1. Does the record lack substantial evidence to support a cost-benefit analysis for <br />Corrective Action No. 2, as the Act requires be done, and did the Board fail to analyze the costs <br />1