FLOOD05850 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II: II II II I - II - - - - - - - - I , - , , I t 1. To rebut the data presented by the Division and Minerals and Geology that there would be no impacts as being irrelevant and/or not credible. Because of the absence of reliable we simply do not know what impacts gravel mining will have on water quality and what health risks may be present. 2~ To address the high iron content in nearby water wells as evidence that the alluvium in the region contains substantial amounts of iron. Affidavits from well owners in the vicinity of the proposed gravel pit were introduced as evidence to refute statements made by the DMG that iron amounts were insignificant. High levels of iron intake have been linked to heart disease. 3. Perhaps the most important and most concerning issue is the suspected impact of gravel mining on mercury releases into the Dolores River and into Mcphee Reservoir. We know that mercury has been detected in the bottom silt of Mcphee and in fish inhabiting Mcphee. Recent information we have uncovered confirms that mercury is entering the Dolores River from abandoned mines in the Rico area. Mercury was used extensively in very abundant quantities to extract gold from ore and residual mercury remains today in highly contaminated sediments at mine sites. From these sediments mercury leaches slowly and continuously into the Dolores River. We believe in the theory supported by some EPA scientists that mercury in its elemental form will re-deposit in the river alluvium as it travels down the river. Disturbances to the alluvium as are caused by gravel mining activities will re-mobilize the mercury into the river aquifer where it could conceivably contaminate water wells, redeposit downstream or travel to the resevoir itself. We had intended to support our allegations with sworn testimony from staff members of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division and had made motions for these witnesses to be subpoenaed. The MLRB chose not to issue the subpoenas. Reclamation Bond Reauirements Finally, we intended to argue that the reclamation costs stated by the applicant of $42,000 were understated but were unable to do so because of time constraints placed on us by the board. However, the DMG also believed the amount was understated and raised the figure to $93,000. The current status is that a petition for re-consideration of the board's decision has been filed the main thrust of which focuses on denial of due process of law issues. The MLRB will take this up during their August meeting.