Laserfiche WebLink
of water quality standards in Ralston Creek and at the groundwater point of compliance. Further, <br />the DRMS should take up the WQCD's recommendation to establish a specific and binding <br />construction and reclamation schedule. It appears that for too long, Cotter has been able to <br />manipulate the regulatory process in such a way that it has been able to escape taking the strong and <br />decisive action necessary to address the serious on going water quality contamination issues at <br />the Schwartzwalder Mine. The DRMS should put an immediate stop to these tactics, and ensure <br />complete clean up at the site in as expeditious of a manner as possible. <br />In conducting its review of the EPP, the Division should reclassify the EPP as an <br />Amendment to the reclamation permit, and not a Technical Revision. This designation has a major <br />impact on the level of involvement by the public and review by the Division - as an amendment has <br />to go through the full process and a technical revision receives less formal public review. The <br />current MLRB regulations define a technical revision as follows: "'Technical Revision' means a <br />change in the permit or an application, which does not have more than a minor effect upon the <br />approved or proposed Reclamation or Environmental Protection Plan." MLRB Hardrock/Mineral <br />Mining Rule 1.1(52). There can be little argument in this case that the changes needed at the <br />Schwartzwalder Mine are "more than minor," and as such, the EPP should be treated as an <br />amendment. Importantly, however, any change in designation should under no circumstances be <br />grounds to in any way delay the need for immediate action at the site to ensure protection of water <br />resources. To the extent any such delay may occur, DRMS should make full use of its enforcement <br />authority to require interim actions to immediately begin work to alleviate the identified violations <br />of surface and ground water quality standards (or any other violations) that are currently on going. <br />Lastly, given the clear need for increased reclamation action at the site, including the strong <br />prospect for active water treatment on-site, DRMS must take action to review and update the <br />financial surety covering reclamation at the site. The current bond was set back in 2003 at <br />$104,082.52. The DRMS documents reflecting this bond amount make no provision for any water <br />quality treatment, active or otherwise. See February 3, 2003 Request for Financial Warranty <br />Reduction. Given that the bond does not appear to have been updated in some seven years, it is <br />fully appropriate, and indeed necessary, to do so now. This revised bonding calculation must <br />account for the need for active water quality treatment, in accord with MLRB regulations. MLRB <br />Hardrock/Mineral Mining Rule 4.2.1(4) (mandating that the bonding amount cover all necessary <br />costs, including "all measures taken to assure the protection of water resources, including costs to <br />cover necessary water quality protection, treatment and monitoring as may be required by Permit, <br />these Rules or the Act."). <br />Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this highly important manner. We look <br />forward to following this issue closely as the potential impacts associated with this mine site are <br />immense. We hope and encourage the Division to take a highly aggressive approach to dealing <br />with what appears to be a long-neglected problem by the mine operator. <br />Sincerely, <br />/s/ Jeffrey C. Parsons <br />Jeffrey C. Parsons <br />Senior Attorney <br />on behalf of Environment Colorado <br />2