2016-03-28_HYDROLOGY - M1977493

• Permit No: M1977493
• IBM Index Class Name: Hydrology
• Doc Date: 3/28/2016
• Doc Name: Comments
• From: Climax Molybdenum
• To: DRMS
• Email Name: ECS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

oV Climax Mine
Climax Molybdenum Highway 91 - Fremont Pass
A Freeport-McMoRan Company Climax, CO 80429
p p y Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Sent by Certified Mail
March 23, 2016 RECEIVED
Mr. Eric Scott MAR 2 8 2016
Environmental Protection Specialist DIV';. . "F RECLAMATION
Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety MINING AND SAFETY
1313 Sherman St., Rm. 215
Denver, CO 80203
Re: Climax Mine Permit No. M-1977-493, EPP - WQMP
Dear Mr. Scott:
This letter provides comments from Climax Molybdenum Company—Climax Mine (Climax)to the
March 20, 2015 letter to DRMS from Leonard Rice Engineers (LRE) written on behalf of Eagle
Park Reservoir Company (EPRC)regarding Climax's proposed Numeric Protection Levels (NPLs)
at two Point of Compliance (POC)well locations in the Eagle River Watershed. The NPLs for the
POCs referenced by LRE were included in the Climax 2013 Annual Reclamation Report.
The LRE letter opposed setting NPLs at levels of the Colorado Basic Standards for Groundwater
(CBSG) based on a concern over protection of the quality of groundwater and surface waters. LRE
asks DRMS to set NPLs at levels equal to "ambient" quality for parameters that have better water
quality than the CBSG to protect groundwater and surface water quality and for antidegradation.
Climax disagrees with LRE's assertions and requests that LRE's positions be rejected. Importantly,
as discussed below,the proposed NPLs at established POCs do protect surface water quality. In
addition,the LRE position is inconsistent with the requirements of Colorado's water quality and
mining reclamation programs.
The LRE letter essentially came down to three issues: (1) assertions that surface water quality
standards and existing and reasonably potential future uses of groundwater are not protected—
assertions without technical support; (2) several related arguments that are tied to EPRC's desire for
application of an antidegradation requirement—a position inconsistent with the state's water quality
programs; and (3) non-specific requests for more technical analysis that are unnecessary given the
historical data already provided to EPRC and technical presentation in Climax's request to DRMS
to set NPLs at POC locations.
The positions taken in the LRE letter are curious given the acknowledgement in LRE reports
prepared for EPRC over the past several years stating that water quality in Eagle Park Reservoir
(EPR)has improved with time, as well as the history of the development of Technical Revision#18
to the Climax Reclamation Permit(TR-18) and associated revisions to the Environmental Protection
Plan(EPP) and Water Quality Monitoring Plan(WQMP). In accordance with the Stipulations to
AM-06 to the Climax Reclamation Permit, the WQMP as well as the Robinson Lake Operating Plan
(appendices to the Climax EPP)were provided to EPRC, its legal counsel and technical consultants