2011-03-31_REVISION - M1977493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Objections to Clinton Reservoir Contamination from the Climax Mining Qperations The Clinton Reservoir Company is concerned that the expansion of the McNulty Gulch Overburden Storage Facility ("OSF') will contaminate the East Interceptor Ditch. This, in turn, will adversely affect the water quality of Clinton Reservoir as the East Interceptor Ditch passes through Clinton Reservoir. Specifically, the alignment of the East Inceptor Ditch, shown in Figure AM-06-G-02 in the Amendment application, appears to receive drainage from the new McNulty Gulch OSF. In addition, the Clinton Reservoir Company is concerned that Climax's proposed blasting activities will adversely affect the water quality of Clinton Reservoir. The addition of fly rock and sediment into the Clinton Reservoir and its feeder ditches as a result of blasting activities has the potential to affect both the water quality and water quantity in those structures. A conservative estimate of the cost and value of the Clinton Reservoir water is $42 million. Inadequacy of Division Recommendations for Clinton Reservoir The Division is recommending approval of the Climax amendment despite acknowledgement that a revised environmental protection plan and a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan are necessary. These plans are essential to insuring the protection of Clinton Reservoir. Likewise, the permit amendment fails to address the contamination of Clinton Reservoir from the expansion of the McNulty Gulch OSF or the planned blasting activities in the Clinton Gulch basin upstream of Clinton Reservoir. Rather, the Division proposes approval of the permit amendment with two very weak stipulations that require the subsequent submission of a water monitoring plan and revised environmental protection plan. The concerns with these stipulations and this approach are detailed above, and are the same for insuring the protection of Clinton Reservoir before the permit amendment is approved. All of the aforementioned concerns must be understood within the context of the applicable state statutes and the Hard Rock/ Metal Mining Rules. The Board and the Division must insure compliance with C.R.S. §34-32-115(4), the engineering requirements of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act, and Hard Rock/Metal Mining Rules 3.1 & 6. In light of these standards and regulations, the Objectors believe that AM-06 is deficient for the following reasons, which will be further detailed at the hearing: (1) The reclamation plan provided in AM-06 does not conform to the requirements of C.R.S. § 34-32-116 and Rule 3.1.6; specifically, the plan fails to minimize disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance. Additionally, there has been no indication that the Board has conferred with the local board of county commissioners or the conservation district, which is required by C.R.S. § 34-32-116(7)0) prior to the approval of a change in any reclamation plan. The application form submitted by 44005 5