My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-05-26_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2011-05-26_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:33:50 PM
Creation date
8/10/2011 2:35:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
5/26/2011
Doc Name
Reply Brief of Plaintiff Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.)
From
Cotter Corporation
To
District Court
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.
/
52
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
reverses the gradient from the stream back into the mine? And that <br />wouldn't require 500 feet. It would just need to, like I said, reverse <br />the gradient. <br />AR:00899:16 -23. <br />The Division admitted that a gradient away from Ralston Creek could be established at a <br />higher level than 500 feet. AR:00899:24- 00900:7. In fact, the Division did not know why the <br />500 foot level was chosen, other than "certainty." AR:00900:8 -17; see also Answer Brief at 21. <br />If the intent of the Order was to reverse the gradient away from Ralston Creek, the Order should <br />have required significantly less dewatering than "to a level at least 500 feet below the Steve <br />Level." See AR:00853. The limited dewatering that would have been needed to reverse the <br />gradient away simply from Ralston Creek would have been significantly less difficult to <br />implement and significantly less expensive. <br />The Defendants also argue that the alternative of adding monitoring wells to the Schwartz <br />Trend as a warning system "would not provide that certainty." Answer Brief at 21. Nothing in <br />the Act allows the selection of a reclamation measure based on "certainty." Rather, the <br />Defendants are bound by the statutory requirements to select reclamation procedures "reasonably <br />designed to minimize as much as practicable the disruption from the mining operation," and to <br />evaluate the benefits to be achieved by the measure and the economic reasonableness of the <br />action. Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 34 -32- 103(13), - 102(2). <br />8 The Defendant's Answer Brief states that mine refilling eventually rose to a level about <br />24 feet below the Steve Level. Answer Brief at 18, AR:00074. According to the Defendants' <br />citation, AR:00074, this level is at a 6,579 water elevation. Further, the Defendants state that in <br />2007 the water level of the mine pool was equivalent to the elevation of Ralston Creek. Answer <br />Brief at 18 (citing AR:00077). The 2007 level was at 6,540 feet. Therefore, dewatering a mere <br />39 feet, or a total of 63 feet below the Steve Level, would have resulted in the mine pool at the <br />level of Ralston Creek adjacent to the Schwartzwalder Mine, which would have reversed the <br />gradient away from Ralston Creek. <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.