Laserfiche WebLink
Delineation of Potential Wetlands for Mine Life Extension 2 Project <br />Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company <br />2006. As part of this approval, the Corps determined that the upper portion of Squaw Gulch is <br />isolated and not regulated under Section 404. This determination was based on a finding at the <br />time that there was not a continuous flow of water between upper Squaw Gulch and the nearest <br />water of the U.S., Cripple Creek. Accordingly, and as approved in the July 20, 2006, letter from <br />the Corps, a small stock pond downstream of SH 67 was reclaimed by CC &V (see Figure 3). <br />Several areas existed in the past downgradient of the small stock pond that had some wetland <br />plant species. Seepage from this stock pond may have sustained these wetland plants. <br />Mining has occurred for years in the upper Squaw Gulch watershed and this has effectively <br />reduced the size of the watershed and the amount of water in lower Squaw Gulch downstream <br />of SH 67. The runoff generation potential from mine waste rock piles is very low. <br />Areas of Baltic rush (Juncus ba /ticus) occur in Squaw Gulch in the first 2,000 feet south of SH 67 <br />(Photos SG -2, SG -4, SG -8, and WDDFs 1, 3, and 4). This species is pervasive throughout the <br />mining district and is a poor indicator of wetlands since it is very rhizomatous and expands into <br />drier areas that lack hydric soil and wetland hydrology indicators. This species, along with <br />currant (Ribes inerme), is very common around old waste rock piles which create relatively <br />wetter conditions, thereby increasing infiltration and local soil moisture. None of the areas at <br />WDDFs 1, 3, or 4 meet the criteria for wetland. Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis) occurs at <br />two locations in Squaw Gulch (see WDDFs 2, 5, and Photo SG -3). WDDF 2 is located <br />downgradient of the small stock pond that was reclaimed; WDDF 5 is located in a gentle swale <br />downstream. The soil at WDDF 2 had hydric soil indicators while the soil at WDDF 5 did not <br />have hydric soil indicators, although it did in the past. Both sites were very dry and neither had <br />any indicators of wetland hydrology. It was concluded that neither of these areas meet the <br />criteria for wetland at this time due to reclamation of the small stock pond which reduced the <br />water supply or other factors. <br />A relatively large vegetated gully exists along the road in the lower portion of Squaw Gulch (see <br />Figure 3). The gully is dominated by upland plant species and has relatively good cover. The <br />gully lacks indicators of hydric soil (see WDDFs 7, 8, and 9), an OHWM, and any evidence of <br />recent flow (e.g., scour marks, water marks, sediment deposits, drift lines, rills, etc.). Photos <br />SG -8, SG -11, SG -12, SG -16, and SG -17 show the condition of the gully. It was concluded that <br />the vegetated gully is an erosional feature that was formed years ago by a relatively infrequent <br />flood event and that has become revegetated naturally; it does not convey water on any routine <br />basis to Cripple Creek. <br />July 2011 Bikis Water Consultants, LLC Page 4 <br />