2011-11-23_REVISION - M1977493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(emphasis added). There has been no documentation of any such consultation, and we received verbal confirmation on October 27, 2011, from DRMS staff, that consultation had not occurred regarding surface water standards implementation. The fact that this consultation has not occurred calls into doubt the appropriateness of the standards proposed by DRMS with respect to TR -18. The reopening and full scale operation of the Climax Mine has the potential to cause considerable impacts to both ground and surface water in the vicinity of the mine despite the protections currently in place and those envisioned under the Environmental Protection Plan and Water Quality Monitoring Plan. In failing to consult with the WQCC and WQCD, the Eagle Park Reservoir Company, Clinton Gulch Reservoir Company, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District ( "Interested Parties ") are concerned that the DRMS has not given adequate consideration to protection of designated uses in surface waters adjacent to the mine site, and the-applicability-of-narrative-and-numeric-surface water - standards; as-well the Antidegradation Review Process ( "ARP ") under 5 CCR 1002 -31.8, all of which are intended to protect those uses. The ARP applies to "regulated activities with new or increased water quality impacts that may degrade the quality of state surface waters that have not been designated as outstanding or use - protected waters." 5 CCR 1002- 31.8(3)(a). Further, given the significant difference between the applicable ground water and surface water standards at the site, there is serious concern that ground water which meets applicable ground water standards could impact surface water to such an extent that the more stringent surface water standards would be violated. This potential deserves serious consideration by DRMS, WQCC, and WQCD. The statute 5 CCR 1002- 31.8(3)(a) emphasizes that antidegradation review should be coordinated with the review process of other agencies, gi ving further credence to the notion the DRMS should be consulting the WQCD and WQCC. While the Interested Parties recognize that DRMS is not responsible for establishing water quality standards, it is their responsibility to ensure that the correct standards are being appropriately applied as performance standards within their agency's review process. See Hard Ro Mining Rules and Regulations 3.1.6. Consultation seems particularly appropriate in this instance as there are questions concerning the applicable standards and the division of responsibility among state agencies. Failing to consult with WQCC or WQCD concerning TR -18 raises serious red flags concerning the adequacy_of DRMS's review of TR -18. The Interested Parties may raise this issue in front of the MLRB and /or on appeal if it is not adequately addressed. 48791 Please let me know if you have any other questions. Sincerel , enn E. Porzak