Laserfiche WebLink
detailed in the EPP. This is especially true, where, as here, the operator admits that the area has the <br />potential to be affected in the future. EPP at 2 ( "However, future exploration drilling may locate <br />sufficient resources to require use of the upper mine waste area and ore storage pad. "). Cotter cannot <br />have it both ways. The company cannot maintain the upper mine area in its permit, and keep open the <br />ability to conduct ground disturbing activities on those lands, yet refuse to provide the EPP information <br />required under the MLRA and Board Rules. The DRMS should require Cotter to provide a complete <br />EPP and not one that unilaterally selects only certain portions of the site at Cotter's convenience. <br />Other portions of the regulations specifically call for detailed information for all areas within a <br />specified distance (i.e. 2 miles) of the operation. See Rule 6.4.21 (throughout). The Division should <br />require that Cotter submit all information required under the regulations, and not just the data Cotter <br />chooses to provide. <br />All Contemplated Storm Water Mitigation Measures Should be Implemented Immediately <br />As briefly mentioned above, Cotter appears to propose in its Construction Schedule (EPP <br />section 10, page 50) that the additional proposed stormwater management would only be contingent on <br />resumption of mining. This proposal should not be accepted by the Division. Notably, even the <br />(inapplicable) "intermittent status" designation requires the operator to comply with all "reclamation, <br />performance standards and Environmental Protection Plan requirements." Rule 1.13.7(a). <br />The proposal to hold off on activities such as improved stormwater management is contradicted <br />by Cotter's own statements that "[s]tormwater management and the prevention of water -rock <br />interaction are the particular focus of environmental protection measures for the JD -8 mine " EPP <br />page 1. Later in the EPP document, Cotter asserts that "[a]ny potential chemical loading to surface <br />water will be controlled and minimized by the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) <br />described in the Stormwater Management Plan (Attachment 4 of the EPP)." EPP at 23. This statement <br />simply does not square with the construction schedule proposing to implement the new stormwater <br />BMPs only at some indeterminate date in the future upon resumption of mining. The Division should <br />reject Cotter's attempt to push off any meaningful work. At minimum, the Division should require <br />additional detail to confirm any activities that will be required immediately. <br />Hydrologic (Surface and Groundwater) and Geologic Information is Lacking <br />The EPP lacks a complete analysis of the hydrologic (surface and groundwater) and geologic <br />setting of the JD -8 mine. For instance, the EPP appears to assert that leachate from waste rock would <br />take 1,000 years to travel 400 feet. EPP at 23. However, Cotter concedes elsewhere that the mine area <br />is "extensively faulted" with "many lesser faults further dissect the area," and that the waste rock pile <br />and other mine features are placed on a fault. EPP at 38. It is not clear from the materials that Cotter <br />has appropriately factored in the faulting to its predictions of potential ground water contamination. <br />Further, Cotter has not adequately dealt with the proximity and relationship of the proposed <br />Pifion Ridge Uranium Mill to JD -8. For instance, Cotter relies on the reports (e.g., Golder 2009) <br />submitted by the mill proponent, but does not account for the potential contribution of contamination <br />to the groundwater at the mill site from JD -8. This is despite recognizing in the EPP that the regional <br />flow of groundwater is to the northwest (towards the mill site from JD -8), discharging into the Dolores <br />River. EPP at 40 -41. In fact, information from the mill proponents submitted to the CDPHE <br />demonstrates the interconnectedness of ground water regimes within the JD -8 area to the valley floor. <br />(See attached groundwater recharge and discharge map). Cotter does not address the fact that the mill <br />4 <br />