DRMS Comment Objection Intake 8/30/2021 1:26:17 PM

Home Browse Search

downstream in the Arkansas River(I authored a study on this,found here www.lowerarkplanjm.com). Additionally,the mine permit documents show natural flow paths that transect the primary mine operations, including the"affected area".The permit application states"Runoff water will be captured in stormwater channels and directed to a stormwater detention pond"however,the site diagram contradicts this claim. The application lists"silt fences,check dams,vegetated swales, rip rap or other appropriate devices before runoff enters any existing drainage"as stormwater BMP's.All of these can be adequate, but a site plan and detailed outline for these BMP's is needed.Additionally,the permit makes several assumptions about storm flows including a 50%infiltration rate(after stating the expected leaching potential of tailings is"minimal"due to low infiltration rates;page 39/40).The stormflow modeling also does not account for site disturbance,which often channelizes flow and increases surface runoff. I believe the site runoff modeling is completely inadequate and does not account for several potential factors while making significant assumptions(page 39/40). 1 believe only 1 sediment pond(at 100'x 150', unspecified depth)is wholly inadequate for storing"treating" produced water.And there is no stormwater capture from natural channels that will be impacted hydrologically from increased development of disturbed areas. I am very concerned there will be no water quality best management practices implemented near the"affected area".The permit also states"seepage(from the FTSF) will be monitored and treated if necessary to meet water quality standards of the State of Colorado."However, they do not address treatment options or give specifics as to how this water will be treated. It's easy to say,"we will treat the water",but when the time comes,what standards can they be held to for"treatment". Reclamation Exhibit C1/1, prepared by 3 Rocks Engineering,shows a natural water course that runs south and west of the main tailings area being rerouted around a detention pond meant to capture surface runoff from the tailings pile. First,this detention pond does not capture the totality of runoff from the tailings pile leaving much of the runoff to flow into"untreated"channels. I am concerned for the"13,000 pounds"of explosives and detonators that will be stored in a location on the edge of the wildland urban interface.This poses significant risks to wildfire ignition in the immediate area which can contribute further to water quality degradation if a wildfire occurs through sedimentation,altered surface runoff regimes.Additionally,the floatation chemicals used in the milling process are all environmental hazards and irritants(OSHA—MSDS),specifically Potassium Amyl Xanthate(PAX).The mine proposes storing over 2,250 lbs.of PAX on-site at any one time. With respect to water rights,the permit states the mine owner/operator will be responsible for securing and delivering augmentation water from the impacts of dewatering on lagged streamflows. I do not believe the owners/operators know the intricate nature of augmentation, I work closely with several groups and individuals that needs or supply augmentation water.The permit should only be approved if dedicated water rights are proven,and an augmentation plan has been approved by the division and/or state engineer.Also,there is no mention of augmentation water from the sediment pond. In Colorado,a storage water right is required to store water for more than 72 hours and evaporative losses must be augmented. Finally, I am deeply troubled by the misleading and false statements made by the Zephyr Minerals president, Mr. Felderhof,that show a complete detachment from the potential impacts of his activities and the adversarial statements he makes towards the community. For example,in local paper article, Mr. Felderhof states""We're not taking water away from the citizens. If anything,we might have some excess water and what would be released into the environment would go into a sediment pond so there's no sediment coming out of it and water coming out of it would be cleaner than what comes out of the tap."This is unequivocally false.There is no "excess water". In Colorado, produced water from any mining activities is part of a larger water balance, including surface and subsurface sources,and must be replaced if used out of priority.That's exactly what Mr. Felderhof proposes to do, intercept water from a hydrologic system out of priority. He will need to augment that water,as acknowledged in their permit application, but statements like the one above shows the detachment of facts and lack of community involvement. Moreover,it attempts to undermine a critical principle(prior appropriation)that make our communities thrive.The dismissive nature of his comments is deeply troubling for a community that will likely have to bear the risk of his proposed activities. Furthermore, no water coming from a sediment pond will ever be as clean as"water from the tap".Again, I spend my career studying water quality and quantity challenges in Colorado and this statement is offensive to even the most poorly educated. Mr. Felderhos has also made dismissive claims of other concerns by diverting attention away from the real issue (i.e.,"...not defacing the mountain because the operation will be underground"said Mr. Felderhof, but the artificial contours from the giant tailings piles will be visible and an eye sore).