Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the Eagle River basin, and from the contamination of interceptor ditches that are a major source <br />of supply for Eagle Park Reservoir. None of these potential problems are adequately addressed <br />in AM-06. <br />Inadeauacv of Division Recommendations for the Eaule River Basin <br />The Division is recommending approval of the Climax amendment despite <br />acknowledgement that a revised environmental protection plan and a comprehensive water <br />quality monitoring plan are necessary. These plans are essential to insuring the protection of <br />Eagle Park Reservoir and the citizens who use the water from this reservoir. Rather than <br />withholding approval of the Climax amendment until the two plans are submitted and <br />determined to be adequate, the Division proposed approval of the permit amendment with two <br />very weak stipulations, attached Exhibit 1, that require subsequent submission of a water <br />monitoring plan and a revised environmental protection plan. These stipulations are inadequate <br />for three reasons: (1) they fail to acknowledge to impact that contamination of Eagle Park <br />Reservoir and Clinton Reservoir would have on Summit and Eagle Counties, as well as the <br />economy of the Colorado, (2) they lack clarity and precision regarding what activities are <br />allowable and/or prohibited between the stipulated amendment approval and approval of the <br />environmental protection and water monitoring plans, and (3) they lack clarity concerning the <br />Objectors' ability to participate in the full Technical Revision review process as provided by <br />Rule 1.7, as well as Rule 1.4.11. By approving the amendment before the essential elements of <br />the water monitoring plan and environmental protection plan are prepared and approved is truly <br />"placing the cart before the horse." <br />The foregoing, coupled with the Division's total failure to consider the Climax plan to <br />use Eagle Park Reservoir as a means to prevent contamination of the remainder of the Eagle <br />River, render the Division recommendations deficient. <br />The Division's recommendations are further deficient because they totally fail to take <br />these issues into account in determining the adequacy of the Financial Warranty. Hard <br />Rock/Metal Mining Rule 4.2.1(4) specifically requires that for the Financial Warranty to be <br />sufficient, it must "assure the completion of reclamation of affected lands." The Rule then goes <br />on to define "reclamation" to include "all measures taken to assure the protection of water <br />resources." Until the revised environmental protection plan and water monitoring plan have <br />been submitted, reviewed, and approved, it is impossible for the Division to evaluate the <br />potential costs of reclamation. Consequently, the establishment of the Financial Warranty is <br />premature and provides an additional example of the "placing the cart before the horse." <br />Lastly, Hard Rock/Metal Mining Rule 1.4.1(5)(d) requires that an application contain "a <br />statement that the Applicant has applied for all necessary approvals from local government." <br />Rule 1.10(1) requires that amendments be filed with "the same content as required for an original <br />application." Thus, AM06 is required to contain such a statement. Not only is this statement not <br />provided, but the Applicants could not have provided such a statement as they have not applied <br />for 1041 Permits in the appropriate counties. As a threshold matter, approval of AM06 is <br />premature given this deficiency. <br />4 <br />44WS <br />