My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
DRMS Comment Objection Intake - DEV 4/1/2024
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M1990057
>
Comment Objection 89280 4/1/2024 (2)
>
DRMS Comment Objection Intake - DEV 4/1/2024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/10/2024 7:01:21 PM
Creation date
4/1/2024 8:38:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1990057
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/1/2024
Doc Name
Comment/Objection
From
Shelby Seitzinger
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
CN3
Email Name
LJW
LJW
LJW
LJW
Media Type
D
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Comment/Objection Narrative* <br />As a Leadville local and ecosystem science and stewardship undergrad student, I object to this application on <br />numerous grounds: use of cyanide in processing tailings; disturbance of and transport of tailings from East <br />Side of Leadville to Mill site; no foolproof method to guarantee no leakage of cyanide & other chemicals from <br />proposed dry stack method of storage of processed materials; threat of leakage into water table of <br />cyanide/other chemicals into groundwater, affecting wells, fishing/rafting industry, irrigation water; potential of <br />environmental catastrophe from leakage of toxic substances (e.g. via air, water) resulting in extreme adverse <br />effects to County residents, visitors and the tourist economies of Lake County and neighboring counties; <br />destruction of wildlife habitats and death of animals, fish in Lake County and beyond along the length of the <br />Arkansas River; health risks associated with airborne toxic particulates ("fugitive dust'). <br />The impact on the upper Arkansas River basin and particularly the Leadville area is significant. Impacts include, <br />but are not limited to: potential cyanide and other chemical contamination of surface and groundwater. The mill <br />waste pile will be a potential source of water contamination risks forever, yet the mill plan does not address <br />perpetual monitoring and management of the waste pile. High water consumption may reduce water availability <br />in the Leadville area for residential and other uses. These water issues alone are so significant the mill should <br />not be permitted to operate. Over the past several decades, countless hours of work and millions of dollars <br />have been spent on repairing the devastating impacts of historic mining in Lake County on the Upper Arkansas <br />River and its tributaries, particularly in the California Gulch watershed where the Leadville Mill and much of the <br />targeted waste is located. As a result, the Upper Arkansas is now the longest continuous stretch of Gold Medal <br />water in the nation. I would ask DRMS to consider if the risks of this project to the Leadville community and the <br />surrounding environment are worth the "benefits". Of particular note, I would ask DRMS to carefully consider <br />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 />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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.