Laserfiche WebLink
area being addressed by Corrective Action No. 1.. See Opening Brief at 3 (regarding Corrective <br />Action No. 1), 12 (citing Division testimony that the alluvium was the cause of uranium in <br />Ralston Creek). Because the substantial evidence did not support the mine pool as a cause of the <br />contamination, Corrective Action No. 2, which is premised on the mine pool being a cause, was <br />unreasonable and arbitrary and capricious. <br />The Defendants' Answer Brief continually attempts to divert the Court's attention away <br />from the key issue — the cause of the uranium levels in Ralston Creek. For example, it discusses <br />the Division finding uncontrolled contaminated water flowing from the mine to Ralston Creek. <br />Answer Brief at 7, 12 (citing AR:00869, 00871, 00879, 01012, 00434 -35, 00981). Not only do <br />these citations not address whether the mine pool was the cause of that flow, but the Defendants <br />fail to acknowledge that Cotter disputed that there was uncontrolled overland flow to Ralston <br />Creek. See AR:00996:17- 00999:14, AR:00554 -59. The Board Order never made any findings <br />of "uncontrolled water flowing from the mine to Ralston Creek." See AR:00845 -55. The <br />citation in the Answer Brief relating to groundwater flowing into Ralston Creek actually supports <br />that it was the alluvial area, not the mine pool, that was affecting Ralston Creek. See Answer <br />Brief at 12 (citing AR:00997 -99). <br />The Defendants' Answer Brief fails to point to any direct evidence that the mine pool is <br />actually leaking. See Answer Brief at 8 ( "a hydraulic connection between the mine pool and <br />Board's decision was based on evidence the Division presented and that Cotter supported. ") <br />None of Cotter's evidence for the July 12, 2010 hearing could be construed to support those <br />statements. See AR:00250 -59, 00260 -83, 00284 -323, 00399 -413; 00903 - 99:18. <br />7 The Defendants state that Cotter placed contaminated waste rock in the alluvium, <br />Answer Brief at 8, 15, which fails to acknowledge the Opening Brief at 7 n.4, stating that no <br />evidence in the records support paragraph 43 of the Order that Cotter placed waste rock <br />containing uranium in the alluvial fill. None of the Defendants' citations address whether the <br />waste rock placement occurred before or after Cotter's purchase of the Mine. See Answer Brief <br />at 15 (citing AR:00043, 49, 00969 -70). <br />12 <br />