PERMFILE135989

• Permit No: M2004067
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 12/21/2004
• Doc Name: Objection Ltr.
• From: Bradley D. Hill
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

December 17, 20(YF
Page 2
This is an erns of very sleep slopes, thin loll with scattered conifer trees. It is hard for me to see
boom [IC plains m diVen the SlreaiR eraual hi4 proeelBlllg Ate, as Ure steams there ate already incised Jaeply
(Fgare I), and moving llrem will tequire a good deal of mining Lrst of all, and will cause a good deal of
disruption when twbid slam-water nutofl" marrying lines and rode dump into pear Creek doming and aA'ter
such telocaticm .
Under t~ Clean Water Act 1 doubt if the propased diversion of [he small streams and the building
cA' a small "~ will be adequately capable of oo6eAing the mining litres and crushed particles
that may be moved by stormwater .
A permit 4(14 from the US Corps of Ergincers git~ng permissive to 6i1 the draimge ways
memioned here has not been sought.
An additiaml water problem will result from Wolf's need to bring in some 30,006 gallons of
water per day for dart coairol to this small bedrock area. 1n S da?s tLis valnme is ]50,000 gallons, amt
Fi04,60D in a monttL Quite a lot of aster more than the mtural precipitation provides. Mr Wolf sa}s Iffi
may need to dig a lined pond or cistern "ro arse Wis water near the plant site"(p. Its. Where? The space is
very crrmped. [f the ephemeral creeks doting startas dv not c[rrte a problem for Nath Clear Creek, [his
large voltme of cew wafer dumped regularly as the srte will cerUidy do so! This action exataerbates the
paablem rasultiag Crrm relocating small streams menticmed above acct digging a settling pond.
Urtcler the Clean Water Act has an)norre calculated the amcwnt of waste rock. mirrerals and heavy
metals this operatics will produce in [he Clear Creek drainage? 1 do not see any data concerning [his
pollutiem problem in proposal M-2004~xi7. Clearly these water problems will have oonsidemble
emiroamemal impact, and the information about such impaAS is lading here.
[ nrNe that the CDPS stam-water permit has mx been applied fa. Stone-water damage m Clear
Crcek is a goal reason why such a permit might be denied. A real concern is that there is very little room
betw+eeu the di[[:s and the Hiway a~ the river far an adegmre "sealing basin" or "lined (storage) pond or
cistern to corttol the slam-water and erasion mrm[f from the mine area.
Drainage: llow is the slam-water from the mine and pL3m area gang to crass Hiway 119 and
enter North Clear Creek? [s the existing passage order Ntway 119 adegwve fa all the neslr stormwa[er
nurd7, (acct tracked waters for dust control) some of which is gang fv contain much mac suspended solids
than now? What is that passage? if it is a culvert, is it big eraugh?
if the mining will impact pan ct1' (SW 114 SW 114 Sac. ~) Cottonwoal Gulch, this is m
"ephemeral stream"! We have water righes and measurement data, a~ this stretmr Mows oatpinttorLSly in
alt seasors.
RESfORATfON
la as much as the project in this proposal does m[ seem to have an end, it is important to know
when (in what yrdr) and when: (ia Seaiom 2S, 26, and 23) r~totaliar will begin. The proposal does not
seem t, tell us (except in general terms about "When dre mrmng LS dale When wtll that be? The
prr~tos<rt says that Mr Wolf "will apply after 10 years, as tare paoeatull is for 100 million tons of rase".
The total rainfall doting the year is only 8.$ inches, mil adegmte for restoration by seed ur succeed
after mining. Gttce fire sal is dismtbed and only rack is the train eicposure, it is unlikely [hat sees will
succeed and grow to maturity. Even when sal is placed on the flatter surfaces, the sal will be thin and has
m mtuml eater storage capacity. Wlren the snit is placed oa la}crs crf the crusher fines (IOp.000 whit
yards per:ewe) ,the problem of mmral storage rtpca:iry is wasetred hauhuse of the porosity of the trusteed
teak (crasher fiats). Water will percolate easily thrargh this bed of rock fines, and the small amoarri of