Laserfiche WebLink
dispute this evidence. See Order 120 ("The Division does not agree that it is certain that the <br />reducing trend will continue.") (emphasis added). Based on these undisputed facts, the finding <br />that a mine pool uranium concentration of 35.4 mg/L is a "serious adverse impact" to the <br />prevailing hydrologic balance is not supportable. <br />For the above reasons, the existing, declining metals concentrations in the mine pool <br />cannot support a violation of section 34-32-116(7)(g), and the Order should be reconsidered to <br />correct this error. <br />The Order should also be reconsidered because the record contradicts additional key <br />findings upon which the Board relies to find a violation of section 34-32-116(7)(9) - that "the <br />contaminated mine pool water has contributed uranium to Ralston Creek," Order ¶ 39, and "mine <br />pool water [has] increased the levels of uranium and other metals in groundwater and surface <br />water (Ralston Creek and Reservoir)," Order ¶ 40. The Division's own evidence undercuts these <br />findings. The Division's principal witness testified at the hearing that the mine pool has not <br />made "a contribution anywhere." Tr. of Hearing at 42:2-7. The Division also does not dispute <br />that "[t]here is no direct evidence that the mine pool is contributing to Ralston Creek." Tr. of <br />Hearing at 141:2-4; see also Tr. of Hearing at 155:23-25 ("I would say I don't believe there is <br />any direct evidence that there is contamination from the mine pool to the creek."), 25:23-24 ("it <br />is unknown how long it would take for this mine pool to reach Ralston Creek"). The Division's <br />power point slides used at the hearing are to the same effect: "Since the mine pool cone of <br />depression has only reached steady state in the past months, it is too early to tell if the mine pool <br />is contributing to Ralston Creek." See Division's Response to Operator Rationale for no Mine <br />Dewatering, Slides 1 and 2 (Division does not dispute "The mine pool is not affecting Ralston <br />Creek via the Schwartz Trend") (attached hereto as Exh. 3). The Division's statements that there <br />4