Laserfiche WebLink
Comment/Objection Narrative* <br /> I live in Buena Vista,which is downstream of Leadville and these proposed mining expansions.The whole <br /> Arkansas River Valley makes the vast majority of its living off of tourism,with the river being the prime resource. <br /> Leadville already has acres of mining slag waste,and the river has only in relatively recent history been cleaned <br /> up from abandoned historical mining waste involving cyanide extraction methods.Taking such a gross step <br /> backwards is a slap in the face to all of the work locals have done to clean up this river and this valley. <br /> Over the past several decades,countless hours of work and millions of dollars have been spent on repairing the <br /> devastating impacts of historic mining in Lake County on the Upper Arkansas River and its tributaries, <br /> particularly in the California Gulch watershed where the Leadville Mill and much of the targeted waste is <br /> located.As a result,the Upper Arkansas is now the longest continuous stretch of Gold Medal water in the <br /> nation. <br /> I would ask DRMS to consider if the risks of this project to the Leadville community and the surrounding <br /> environment are worth the benefits.Of particular note,we would ask DRMS to carefully consider the following: <br /> Does the CJK proposal adequately identify groundwater depth throughout the site or the preferential flow <br /> pathways/rates?In the instance of a spill, it would be necessary to have groundwater defined.Groundwater <br /> mapping would also play into a remediation plan in the instance of a spill.Those pathways must be identified <br /> and mitigated during an emergency to reduce impacts on drinking water supplies including wells in the area. <br /> Has CJK properly addressed concerns around the daily operations of the mill,such as mitigating impacts to <br /> wildlife and exposure to materials with elevated sodium-cyanide?This can include both terrestrial and aquatic <br /> wildlife/organisms. <br /> Has CJK properly addressed the disposal of processed waste throughout the life of the mine?Where will <br /> processed waste be disposed of or remediated to reduce impacts on human health and the environment?Does <br /> the life cycle of the proposed disposal plan fully mitigate the risks of its location in a highly sensitive <br /> environment? <br /> Does the CJK proposal address the risks to the community and the environment of disturbing the east side <br /> waste piles?The potential for release of toxic materials into the air,surface water,and groundwater must be <br /> addressed both during and after excavation.These waste piles have stabilized over time and disturbing them <br /> will increase the potential for erosion of freshly exposed surfaces by wind and water. <br /> Water is,and has always been, Colorado's most precious resource,one which has constantly been at risk from <br /> fallout from the historical mining processes which have never been fully remediated.Any attempt to access <br /> these sites beyond the scope of remediation are condemnable,and not in the interest of the local communities <br /> and businesses.The processing of mining waste with the use of cyanide can only be assumed to have the goal <br /> of extracting any valuable minerals left behind by less efficient,historical mining techniques.As such,this <br /> proposal only has the opportunity to negatively impact the community,and should not be allowed to proceed. <br /> Permit Number* <br /> Enter valid letter and then numbers,for example M1977999, M1999777UG or C1981201. <br /> M1990057 <br /> Permitting Action Type <br /> Select revision type or leave blank if comment pertains to a new permit application or NOI <br /> Permit Type <br /> County <br /> Lake <br /> Enter one county only <br /> Site Name <br />