Laserfiche WebLink
groundwater and surface water (Ralston Creek and Reservoir)." Order ¶¶ 33, 39, 40, <br />AR:00850 -52 (emphasis added). The Defendants' Answer Brief confirms the lack of substantial <br />evidence to support these findings. In their brief, the Defendants admit that the Division's <br />principal witness, David Bird, held the opinion at the time of the July 12, 2010 Hearing that <br />"there is no direct evidence that the mine pool was contributing uranium to the creek." Answer <br />Brief at 20. The Defendants also admit that the Division's pre- hearing statements and Hearing <br />testimony expressed the possibility of future mine pool leakage, but not the current contribution <br />by the mine pool to uranium concentrations in Ralston Creek. See, e.g., Answer Brief at 12 <br />( "The Division also stated that the underground mine pool `might also be a contributing <br />factor. ") (emphasis added); 42 ( "The Division, through David Bird, testified that its concern is <br />future harm caused by a hydraulic gradient toward the creek. ") (emphasis added); 46 ( "The <br />Division presented evidence that the contaminated water in the mine pool has the potential to <br />migrate to Ralston Creek. ") (emphasis added); 47 ( "Division staff further testified that the <br />contaminated mine pool water may migrate to Ralston Creek . . . .") (emphasis added); 47 <br />( "[T]he Division expressed concern that an underground geologic structure, known as the <br />Schwartz Trend, will transmit mine pool water to Ralston Creek.... ") (emphasis added). Thus, <br />the Division's testimony does not support the Board's conclusion that the mine pool "has" <br />contributed, or "is" contributing, uranium to Ralston Creek and Ralston Reservoir. <br />Similarly, the evidence introduced by Cotter at the July 12, 2010 Hearing does not <br />support the Board's conclusions. As the Defendants acknowledge, Cotter's EPP provided <br />information on "possible" conduits between the mine pool and the surface, explained that the <br />flooded mine workings "may" be a minor source of chemical loading to the alluvium, <br />acknowledged that water in the mine pool "may" be seeping into the Ralston Creek alluvium, <br />21 <br />