Laserfiche WebLink
is no direct evidence that the mine pool is contributing to Ralston Creek is consistent with the <br />evidence presented by Cotter in the Rationale at page 3. That evidence was sampling conducted <br />during low flow (base flow) conditions in early December 2009 showing the uranium <br />concentrations actually decreased downstream of the Schwartz trend. The Order does not <br />mention this sampling. <br />Based on the above, there is no basis to conclude that the mine pool has contributed to <br />uranium concentrations in Ralston Creek or Ralston Reservoir. Accordingly, the mine pool does <br />not support a violation of section 34-32-116(7)(g). <br />The Order should also be reconsidered because it does not rule on or consider the facts <br />and analysis Cotter previously raised on certain of these issues. Cotter's filings explained that <br />the mine pool could not support a violation of section 34-32-116(7)(g) because the prevailing <br />hydrologic balance is the mine pool in a flooded state - a condition that the Division expressly <br />authorized. See Cotter's letter to the Division dated June 21, 2010, at 3, and Cotter's Response <br />Brief dated July 9, 2010, at 3-4. However, the Order does not address this point. Nor does the <br />Board respond to the complete lack of data and scientific analysis showing than that the mine <br />pool has increased the levels of uranium and other metals outside the mine workings. These are <br />material issues that the Order should address. Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-4-105(14)(a); 2 CCR 407- <br />1, Rule 2.8.2(3). <br />The Order should also be reconsidered because it applies an incorrect legal standard. <br />The Order states that Cotter has violated section 34-32-116(7)(g) "for failing to protect the <br />prevailing hydrologic balance." Order 140 (emphasis added). Cotter has no such obligation <br />under section 34-32-116(7)(g), which provides "Disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic <br />balance ... shall be minimized." Accordingly, the Order should be reconsidered. <br />5