Laserfiche WebLink
When asked point blank by a member of the Board whether there was "evidence now of <br />contamination from the mine pool to the creek," the Division responded, "I would say I don't <br />believe there is any direct evidence that there is contamination from the mine pool to the creek." <br />(Exh. B, 155:20-25.) <br />34. The Division also admitted that its proposed dewatering plan was an extreme <br />measure, in that it would not just accomplish a reversal of the hydrological gradient away from <br />Ralston Creek, but extend it all the way to Ralston Reservoir. (Exh. B, 39:12-40:17.) <br />Furthermore, the Division effectively conceded that it agreed with Cotter's cost estimates for the <br />dewatering project, but failed to offer any explanation of the relative cost-benefit of not <br />dewatering the Mine and simply treating the alluvium and fill adjacent to Ralston Creek versus <br />the elaborate and technically complex plan the Division had proposed for dewatering the Mine. <br />(Exh. B, 145:19-148:10, 158:23-159:11.) <br />35. The Board invited witnesses from Denver Water and the City of Arvada to <br />address the question of what costs were being imposed on their respective bodies by the need to <br />conduct more extensive treatment of water drawn from Ralston Reservoir, but neither of them <br />could actually articulate what, if any, increased costs they were facing. (Exh. B, 160:16-164:7.) <br />36. After hearing testimony from both sides, the Board closed testimony and began <br />deliberations. (Exh. B, 174:14-16.) Almost immediately, the Board's chair acknowledged, "we <br />don't have data that specifically says there is a problem, but we're lacking data that says there is <br />not a problem." (Exh. B, 174:23-25.) The Board then began speculating about possible means <br />of transmission of water from the mine pool to Ralston Creek that had not been specifically <br />addressed in the testimony and other possible sources of evidence on the subject. (Exh. B, <br />180:7-183:6.) <br />37. The Board chair then, without explicitly reopening testimony, literally announced, <br />"Division got any thoughts?" (Exh. B, 183:11-12.) A Division witness then offered several <br />observations about the likelihood of water from the mine pool reaching Ralston Creek, without <br />any particularly identified evidentiary basis, culminating in the emotional and unsupported <br />pronouncement, "I'm scared to death of the circumstance that may exist if we ... take or <br />recommend a solution other than what we've brought before you today." (Exh. B, 185:9-12.). <br />38. After receiving this testimony, and without giving Cotter any opportunity to <br />respond, the Board almost immediately voted to accept the Division's recommendations of <br />finding three violations against Cotter and ordering Cotter to undertake all corrective actions <br />identified by the Division. (Exh. B, 188:4-17.) The Board then acknowledged that its order <br />would require not just Technical Revisions of the Permit, but an Amendment and voted <br />unanimously in favor of creating a separate timetable for dewatering activities. (Exh. B, 188:24- <br />189:21.) <br />39. On July 27, 2010, the Board delivered to Cotter a draft of its Findings of Fact, <br />Conclusions of Law, and Order ("Draft Order"), on which Cotter made redline comments and <br />corrections. Cotter returned its mark-up of the Draft Order on July 30, 2010, along with a <br />8