Laserfiche WebLink
Your Gonln1uni~ Voica in the Garman <br />Re: Battle Mountain Gold Mine Operations <br />April 23, 1992 <br />Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Board <br />1313 Sherman St. - Room 215 <br />Denver, Co. 80203 <br />Dear Bruce Humphries, <br />AF'R 2 71992 <br />Mined Land <br />Reclamation D(vialon <br />On behalf of our citizens' groups in northern New Mexico, I would like to <br />express our concern regarding the MLRD standards and guidelines for <br />the Battle Mountain gold mine near San Luis, Colorado. <br />We are a citizens' group with over 150 members in Taos County - just adjacent <br />to the Colorado border, and only an hour and a half from San Luis and the Battle <br />Mountain gold mine. We are long-time residents of this area - with many of our <br />members' families having lived here for several hundreds of years. We are a <br />watchdog group for actions of the Forest Service on the Carson National Forest, <br />as well as for many other public land projects and actions on BQ.M and State <br />land. <br />Since the MLRD must approve all applications for mining in Colorado, we are <br />addressing our concerns to your Dept. The Battle Mountain Gold Nine has been <br />beset with problems since its' opening; we are concerned that within the past <br />year, there has already been serious problems from this mining operation - <br />dead water fowl in the tailings pond, 38 times the legal limit of cyanide found <br />in the leach fields, etc. etc. This situation is not only unacceptable, it is <br />cause for concern and alarm - and it is the responsibility of your Dept. to <br />address these concerns immediately. <br />We have several questions for the MLRD: <br />1) Why was the Battle Mountain Gold Mine allowed to re-open only a week after <br />the State of Colorado ordered the mine to cease operating because of high levels of <br />toxicity?? <br />2) Why did the MLRD allow the mine to continue operating, knowing that these high <br />levels existed?? <br />3) If the original ore samples did not adequately reflect the correct amount of <br />copper in the ore body ( copper enhances cyanide toxicity) - and winter conditions <br />hinder this process - why did not the MLRD conduct appropriate testing of this ore?? <br />4) Why is the MLRD considering a~ lowerin¢ of standards to allow a higher level <br />of toxicity?? <br />We seriously oppose any attempts to reduce or lower the toxicity levels, and <br />weaken the standards - especially as they relate to surface and groundwater. What <br />support does your Dept. have from the EPA, the State Environmental Dept., and <br />the Colorado Groundwater Division??? Please document this for us, and send us <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />La Comunidad Citizens' Group <br />Carson Forest Watc$ <br />ao: is r~~~~E~5-ss~-zaas <br />