PERMFILE131882 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

July 16, 2001 To: Tom Schreiner Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, CO 80302 From: Loretta VanNorstrand PO Box 773688, Steamboat Springs, CO 80477 970/879-2727 Fax 879-3680 Deborah K. Landers PO Box 881084, Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 970/870-3069 Re: Camilletti Pit #2 Objection, File # M-2001-023 Issues - S-« Pie - 6o4•,d Ede ar',n~~ O.An.,r The en neering analysis provided by Camilletti and Sons does not contain the correct information necess to verify that all pit excavations and silt ponds will be outside the limits of the floodways for T ut Creek and the Yampa River. DMG's Concern 9 indicates that mining shall not occur withi 400 feet of the floodway of either river. We claim that information used in the applicant's mod ling showing that mining it is not in the floodway is incorrect and the information used has pro ced incorrect analysis. The engineering flood analysis performed on Trout Creek provided by Camilletti and Sons does not ontain the correct information necessary to verify that all pit excavations and silt ponds will be safe from capture during a 100-year flood. We claim that questionable cross sectional data used to dev lop the HEC-RAs model setup files makes it incorrect and has produced incorrect analysis. Pote tial effects that dewatering will have on groundwater levels and Milner wells has not been scien ifically verified. Because the applicant claims that a "boundary condition" exists does not mean that it is true or has been verified. Additionally, the claim that the existing groundwater gradi t is to the wesUsouthwest and that the groundwater at the site flows from the Yampa River [owaz Trout Creek has not been modeled nor proven. The letters from Water Resource Consul t, LLC date July 20, November 6 and November 27 are not conclusive as to the impacts of min' g on the groundwater or the size of the cone of depression. We claim that the extensive cone of egression that will be caused by dewatering may have a detrimental effect of Milner wells and that a applicant's have not proven otherwise. Water fro the bottom of the pit will be used for processing (crushing and screening), we are not convince that these waters will not be capable of contributing to the pollution of the surface or groundwa er system. We must further explore how the process water will be managed to protect against po lu[ion. We are c ncemed with the refusal of the applicant to use the Division's recommended list of riparian d wetland species seed mixtures for incorporation into a wetland revegetation plan. We are no convinced that using a true wetland revegetation plan is harmful and won't work as the aool' ant claims. ~ G is accountable as a Public Agency as are their standards for government review including the ~ blic health, safety and welfare and the public interest. Therefore, we contend that our mental uish over mining approval based on untruths are valid.