Laserfiche WebLink
at the Schwartzwalder Mine showed that flooding was resulting in consistent declines of uranium <br />concentrations within the mine pool. See AR:00265 -66, 00527, 00956:21- 00959:23. <br />Moreover, the Defendants' examples do not include the most relevant one, which is the <br />recent regulatory approval of flooding by construction of a bulkhead as a remedial mitigation for <br />the Dinero Mine Tunnel near Leadville. AR:00267, 00321 -23, 00952:8 -16. This mitigation was <br />identified by the Bureau of Land Management ( "BLM "), Fish and Wildlife Service, the Division, <br />and the Colorado Depai tment of Public Health and Environment as the most effective means of <br />managing underground mine water that was flowing from the tunnel. AR:00267, 00315, <br />AR:00952:8 -24. As stated on the BLM web -site, a "bulkhead is a permanent acidic mine <br />damage fix or source control method much preferable and lower cost than the long term <br />operation and maintenance commitment for water treatment alternatives." AR:00321. It also <br />states that "[p]roperly designed and constructed, bulkheads will last indefinitely, and allow <br />groundwater to return to its original condition prior to being disrupted by mining." AR:00321 <br />(emphases added). <br />2. Substantial Evidence Does Not Support That the Mine Pool (Versus <br />the Alluvium) Has Caused Contamination of Ralston Creek. <br />The Defendants argue that they considered environmental impacts, see Answer Brief at <br />38, but much of the Defendants' Answer Brief simply focuses on contamination of Ralston <br />Creek. It ignores the key issue, which is whether the mine pool is causing the contamination. <br />The substantial evidence showed that the mine pool was not the primary cause, or any cause, of <br />the contamination. Rather, the substantial evidence indicates that the cause was the alluvial fill <br />6 Cotter strongly disagrees with the Defendants characterization that "[b]oth the Division <br />and Cotter presented evidence supporting the conclusion ... that the Mine is neither isolated nor <br />contained, that conduits exist for the mine pool to reach Ralston Creek, that the mine pool water <br />is likely or is contributing to the uranium load in the creek, and that the mine pool presents a <br />serious threat to the creek." See Answer Brief at 44; see also Answer Brief at 49 -50 ( "The <br />11 <br />