Laserfiche WebLink
interpretation of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act provision in question. She stated <br /> further that, as WQCD's attorney, she was bound to uphold her client's position. I presented <br /> a brief history of the Sunnyside Mine and a review of the physical nature of the proposed <br /> project. Mr. Raisch then offered Ms. Whiting a summary of the legal arguments he had <br /> developed to support SGC's position that seeps and springs arising after closure would not <br /> be point source discharges unless they were in direct hydrologic communication with a <br /> source of water in the mine. Ms. Whiting differed in her interpretation of the applicable <br /> statutes and cases, and stated that the law clearly supported WQCD's position, which in <br /> brief is that any change in the water quality or quantity of flow of seeps, springs or Cement <br /> Creek that may occur after plugging of the mine will be potential grounds for citing SGC. <br /> Discussion then turned to WQCD's concerns. Ms. Nelson stated that she was <br /> uncomfortable with the amount of flow data and water quality data currently available. <br /> When asked how much data would be required to provide comfort, she replied that she was <br /> unable to say because she lacked sufficient data. I asked whether she could state WQCD's <br /> requirements generally, and she replied that her office had been preparing a letter stating <br /> their requirements but had delayed sending it to SGC because SGC had requested the <br /> March 10 meeting. Ms. Nelson restated WQCD's position that it would be inappropriate for <br /> SGC to effect final closure of the mine before the agency is satisfied that it has adequate <br /> baseline data. She stated also that the bromide tracer survey proposed by SGC and <br /> incorporated as a condition of the DMG final reclamation permit would not be adequate <br /> assurance of detection of water emerging from the mine. She added that bromide is a toxic, <br /> and SGC would add it to the mine pool at its peril. <br /> Ms. Nelson then repeated her request that SGC agree not to plug until these issues <br /> are resolved. I stated in reply that we had not seen a statement of WQCD's concerns and <br /> requirements, and could not respond until we knew what specifically was being asked of <br /> us. I stated that SGC would attempt to address WQCD's concerns to the extent possible. <br /> She agreed to send the letter her office had been preparing, within seven to ten days. <br /> Although I have not received the letter, Larry Perino faxed me a letter he received <br /> yesterday, restating WQCD's concerns. I have not had time to evaluate the letter in order <br /> to formulate a response. I enclose a copy for your convenient reference. Enclosed also <br /> is a copy of a letter sent by Mr. Raisch to Ms. Whiting following the meeting. <br /> To my knowledge, there have been no other communications with WQCD or the AG <br /> office concerning the Sunnyside closure. This letter is provided for your information and at <br /> your request. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. <br /> ry my Yo6Ech <br /> -e 7 <br /> C ristophe H <br /> taff Counsel, ay Mines <br /> for <br /> Sunnyside Gold Corporation <br /> cc: Bill Goodhard <br /> Larry Perino <br /> Jerry W. Raisch <br /> Patricia Nelson, WQCD <br /> Amelia Whiting, Office of the Attorney General <br />