Laserfiche WebLink
(Colo. Ct. App. 2008) (court must determine whether the agency "applied the correct legal <br />standard"). <br />B. No Substantial Evidence Exists That the Mine Pool Supports a Violation of <br />Colo. Rev. Stat. & 34-32-116(7)(c). <br />The Board did not establish that the mine pool supports any violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. <br />§ 34-32-116(7)(c), which provides "[a]cid-forming or toxic-producing material that has been <br />mined shall be handled in a manner that will protect the drainage system from pollution." See <br />Order ¶ 43, AR:00852. To support its conclusion that Cotter violated subsection 116(7)(c), the <br />Board relied on two findings pertaining to the mine pool: (1) "the underground mine workings <br />contain uranium and other metals in the wall rocks which have leached into the mine pool;" and <br />(2) "[a]s the mine pool attains hydrostatic equilibrium, it poses a serious threat to downgradient <br />water resources." Id. These findings do not show that the mine pool supports any violation of <br />subsection 116(7)(c). <br />As to finding one, the Board does not assert that uranium and other metals which leached <br />from wall rock into the mine pool have entered any drainage system. The Board's first finding, <br />therefore, does not show that the mine pool supports any violation of subsection 116(7)(c). <br />The record does not support the Board's second finding that, "[a]s the mine pool attains <br />hydrostatic equilibrium, it poses a serious threat to downgradient water resources." See Order <br />¶ 43, AR:00852. The Division did not produce data, modeling, or scientific analysis <br />documenting this alleged threat. Recognizing this conspicuous lack of evidence, the Board's <br />chairwoman observed at the close of testimony that "we don't have data that specifically says <br />there is a problem ...." AR:01034:23-24. The lack of data does not substantiate a "serious <br />threat." <br />31