Laserfiche WebLink
.. c • ~ • <br />t~ <br />III. CRITERIA FOR SIiLECTIOti OP ALTEii.`;:1TIVES <br />The pertinent guides, instructions, laws and other considerations under <br />which the decision for. this proposal will be made include: <br />1. The 1&72 General dining Laws. <br />2. The ].872 ?lining Act Use Regulations. <br />3. National Environmental Folicy Act of 1969. <br />G. Ctultiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. <br />5. Tlie Endangered Species Act of 1973. <br />6. itining industry needs in the area. <br />7. Public Heads, both locally and nationally. <br />8. Resource capability and availability. <br />IV. ALTERNATIV%S: ANAi.YSIS, EVALUATIO:i, AND SELECTION <br />The following alterciatfves were considered in analyzing this proposal. <br />1. Do Nothin~*, - 1•Iater treatment is necessary in order to meet the <br />requirements of the );uildog i`fountain nine's NPllES Permit. the <br />permit system is administered by the Colorado Department of Health <br />~• which ]gas directed that llomestake treat the r~iine discbarge. In <br />order for Homestake to comply with the State's requirements, they <br />must construct a water treatment plant. This alternative uas not <br />selected since it does no[ accomplish the desired results. <br />2. Delay Action - Aomestake's NPDES Permit requires that the mine will <br />meet effluent discharge standards during 19%7. In addition, under <br />the Operating Plan procedure as outlined in the 1II72 Mining Act <br />Use Regulations, the sorest Service has thirty clays from the <br />receipt of the Plan to analyze and approve the Plan or request <br />additional time. In this case, there is not reason to delay action <br />or request additional time. This alternative was not selected <br />because it would not accomplish the desired results. <br />3. Plans Examined lsy }Iomestake - P.efer to the Operating Plan - Iter,~ 19. <br />These alternatives include decantation through existing tailing <br />ponds, a basin-wide solution for the entire i~illow Creek llrainage, <br />and several different types of ranter treatment plants. These plans <br />Caere all rejected because they were too expensive and time- <br />consuming, resulted in more surface disturbance, were not suitable <br />to remove both heavy metals and suspended solids, or Caere legally <br />infeasible. The Operating Plan analyzes these alternatives and <br />discusses why they were not chosen. <br />~, <br />- 141 _ . <br />