Laserfiche WebLink
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW <br />1. Where the Act allows the Board to impose civil penalties only for violations of a <br />mining permit, did the Board exceed its statutory authority by imposing civil penalties on Cotter <br />for its alleged failure to comply with the August 2010 Order? <br />2. Did the Board similarly exceed its statutory authority by entering a cease -and- <br />desist order based on Cotter's alleged violation of the August 2010 Order? <br />3. To the extent that the December 2010 Order is based on alleged statutory <br />violations, did the Board act contrary to law by relying on the identical facts and alleged <br />statutory violations in the August 2010 Order? <br />4. Where the August 2010 Order failed to clearly and precisely define the conduct <br />required to comply, did the Board act contrary to law by imposing civil penalties and a cease - <br />and- desist order in its December 2010 Order? <br />5. Should the Court set aside the cease - and - desist order in the December 2010 Order <br />3 <br />where the Board again failed to define with clarity and precision the conduct required to comply? <br />6. Should the Court set aside the December 2010 Order where the Board abused its <br />discretion and acted contrary to law by refusing to consider Cotter's evidence that it was <br />impossible to comply with Corrective Action No. 2 in the August 2010 Order? <br />STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW <br />As described above, the August 2010 Order concluded by ordering Cotter to "[r]einitiate <br />mine dewatering and water discharge treatment sufficient to bring the mine water table to a level <br />at least 500 feet below the Steve Level, and sufficient to reestablish a hydraulic gradient away <br />from Ralston Creek," with "[i]mplementation [to] occur as soon as possible, but no later than <br />