Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />states that the mine site has not been visited by DOW staff and <br />that it is relying on a DOW referral to MLRD regarding Earth <br />Sciences E1 Plomo Mine dated May 14, 1979, almost ten years <br />ago. This Division of Wildlife review is not timely. DOW must <br />review and comment on Battle Mountain's permit application. <br />II. BATTLE MOUNTAIN'S RECLAMATION PLAN FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE <br />REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT. <br />C.R.S. § 34-32-116(7) (1988 Cum. Supp.) and MLRD Rule 6 <br />specify numerous requirements for reclaiming lands disturbed by <br />mining operations. Battle Mountain's reclamation plan does not <br />meet several of the minimum requirements set forth in the <br />statute. <br />A. Battle Mountain Ras Failed To Ade uatel Ensure That Th <br />Toxicity Of The Heap Leach Pile Will Be Neutra ized <br />During Reclamation. <br />C.R.S. § 34-32-116(7)(c) provides: "Acid-forming or <br />toxic producing material that has been mined shall be handled in <br />a manner that will protect the drainage system from pollution." <br />In its response to Point No. 46, Battle Mountain suggested that <br />ten rinsings with hydrogen peroxide will neutralize the cyanide <br />remaining in the heag leach. However, Battle Mountain did not <br />commit to representative sampling and testing to assure that ten <br />rinses will in Fact neutralize the remaining cyanide in the heap <br />leach to the 0.2 ppm free cyanide standard recommended IDy MLRD <br />-10- <br />