Laserfiche WebLink
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, Water Quality Control Division <br />Rationale — Page 21, Permit No. C00036251 <br />additional environmental requirements as it pertains to groundwater. DRMS did not require EPPs for Uranium <br />sites that were in temporary cessation prior to May 20, 2008 (signing of HB 08 -1161) and remained inactive <br />while regulations to implement the HB 08 -1161 requirements were promulgated. This rulemaking process was <br />completed on September 30, 2010. DRMS is currently working to require EPPs for all permitted Uranium <br />mines including those in temporary cessation. The scope of the EPP process does include groundwater <br />protection under the authority granted to DRMS in accordance with SB 181. On that basis, the Division <br />clarified that DRMS is the SB181 groundwater authority for this site at this time. The Division has referred a <br />copy of the comments received regarding groundwater concerns to DRMS. Any additional questions and issues <br />related to groundwater, DRMS enforcement, DRMS bonding, mine operations, and Mine Land Reclamation <br />Acts should be directed to DRMS. <br />Regarding bonding and financial warranty, it is the Division's determination that it is not necessary to include <br />conditions in this permit requiring a financial warranty. The comment states that in Case No. WQ 2008 -0003, <br />re: CDPS Permit No. CO- 0035394, U.S. Energy Corporation, Lucky Jack Project, an Administrative Law Judge <br />recognized that the Division has "inherent authority to impose financial assurances as a permit condition when <br />`necessary' to ensure compliance with a permit ". Historically the Division has never required financial <br />assurance from facilities applying for a CDPS permit. The Division has no reason to believe that the discharge <br />associated with this permit poses a threat substantially different than that of any of the other permits that would <br />prompt financial assurance requirements or that financial assurance is necessary in this case to ensure <br />compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. The terms and conditions the Division included in this <br />permit are enforceable, and the Division has broad enforcement authorities that allow it to address permit non- <br />compliance. <br />COMMENT 7: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the Endangered Species Act. <br />Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Wildlife are not considered. Because this permit involves both federal <br />lands and federally listed species, the permit cannot be issued without prior Endangered Species Act ( "ESA ") <br />consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. <br />The holding ponds and treatment facilities are attractive but deadly sources of water for migratory birds which <br />are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Unfortunately, the present permit contains no information <br />regarding any attempt to comply with either the Endangered Species Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. <br />Significant criminal penalties can be imposed on any person who violates the procedural or substantive <br />protections provided by these laws. <br />RESPONSE 7: <br />Issuance of this permit does not trigger a federal action in accordance with NEPA. The permit includes effluent <br />limits to protect water quality standards, both numeric and narrative, for several designated beneficial uses. The <br />stream segment to which the JD -7 and JD -9 mines discharges into is not in the list of the USFWS critical habitat <br />designation for federally listed threatened and endangered fish. Issues regarding the migratory bird treaty act <br />and Endangered Species Act are outside the scope of this permit. <br />COMMENT 8: Unique conditions require mine - specific and cumulative analyses and additional data to be <br />utilized. <br />Each mine discharges into a separate tributary, each of which has unique characteristics which require separate <br />analysis. In addition, a cumulative analysis is necessary to assess and address the impacts of these and all other <br />uranium mines on the mainstem of the Dolores River, most of which are sited on federal public lands. As <br />currently written, the WQA does not provide the required information or analysis on which a discharge permit <br />may be based for either mine. Further, the Paradox Valley side of the Monogram Mesa is distantly different <br />