Laserfiche WebLink
findings. That sampling, conducted during low flow conditions in early December 2009, showed <br />no evidence of chemical loading from the mine pool to Ralston Creek via the Schwartz Trend, <br />and instead demonstrated that uranium concentrations in Ralston Creek actually decreased <br />downstream of the Schwartz Trend. AR:00263; 00950:3-9. Long-term monitoring has shown <br />no spatial trend of increasing uranium concentrations as the creek flows downstream of the mine <br />property line. AR:00522; 00947:20-25; 00950:22-00951:9. At the hearing, the Division agreed <br />that the mine pool is not affecting Ralston Creek via the Schwartz Trend. AR:00477; 01001:23- <br />25. <br />To support its assertions that the mine pool contributed uranium to Ralston Creek, the <br />Board cites statements from Cotter's EPP. See, e.g., Order 121, AR:00848 (EPP considered the <br />mine pool a "possible conduit" for uranium into Ralston Creek"); Order ¶ 22, AR:00848 <br />(flooded Mine workings "may be a minor source"); Order ¶ 23, AR:00848 (water quality results <br />"suggest that the flooded mine could contribute 0.8 to 8% of the alluvial flow"). These <br />statements are taken out of context, and therefore fail to support the Board's position. The EPP <br />was written expansively to comply with regulatory requirements and to meet theoretical, <br />unproven conditions, AR:00031, without establishing or even needing to show that actual <br />contamination had, or would occur. Thus, at the hearing, the EPP's author, Ms. Wyman, <br />testified "We're not saying that water is flowing from the mine pool to the creek, but if it did, it <br />would move through the alluvium and fill and be captured in the treatment system." <br />AR:00954:22-25. She also stated in her report written after the EPP that "[t]here is no direct <br />evidence that the mine pool is contributing uranium to Ralston Creek." AR:00261. The EPP's <br />28