Laserfiche WebLink
Memo ly File NoM-1977-342 3 October 18 20(16 <br />In rrsponse to ;t UR415 Ithcn known as the Mined Land Keclarnation Division (MI_KL)11 letter of <br />adcyuacy review ol'tbr anu•ndntcut :141-u1 application, Llcndcrson stated in a letter dated March 19. <br />1981: <br />The only water management change presented in the amendment is the redesign and rrconstructiun <br />o(au existing interceptor canal around the tailing pond to allow the bypass of lush water around <br />our lacililics lhrna,r;knrr! !!reli(r of mi+rr• and aRcr the opcraliott. N:inphu.~is udr/rJl. <br />l his leads to the conclusion shat the ultimate interceptor canal, in conception, was approved through A4f- <br />UI. <br />(fi ;lpril 3. 1953, technical revision TR-ill to the Henderson Pcnnit was suhmiltcd to DRMti (then <br />MI.RI)). TR-lll described a reduced life of mine tailing impoundment Iiuuprinl necessitated by a <br />depressed molybdenum market that was uccurrine in the 195i1s. the TR-ol states that the ultintntc <br />interceptor canal would be cunstntcted :n the SS~(1 lino contour instead of the previously anticipated S95U <br />lixtt contour. Phis component of l R-Ol a:ts approved un 41:ry 4, 19,1'5. <br />Qn March 11, 1991, technical nvision'I'R-ll? a1 the i Ienderson Pcnnit was suhmiltcd to DKMti Ilhcn <br />MI.I2D1. 1'hc TR-0? application stated that the interceptor ditch conslnrclion had been completed as per <br />the schedule from the 195 tcchntcal revision, 1 R-nl . <br />f)n ,lone 2h. 1991. technical reyisiun'1R-113 to the Ilrmtcrsan Permit was submitted to DR\15 ithcn <br />41LRD1. 1'hc maps provided w ith TR-03 shun the ultimate tailing deposition level at 591x1 Icel• ;uul thr <br />uhim;uc diversion canal at 39it1 iCet. On these maps, the alTcclcd land boundary is shown abocc the canal <br />al elevations ofhehtccn'>txltl p, 911111 fief. 1'he fK-11.3 was approved by DIZ\i5 un July ?b. 1991, <br />(.ht lcptembcr 6. 3(Itl?, tcchntcal revision 1R-12 to the Henderson Permit was suhnuucd to DIZMS Ithcn <br />U41G). In fR-l_' it is stated "...I Icndcrson does not wisft li+chminatc any of the 39.1 huflir acres Iron <br />the al•fecled area within the permit boundary, it does propose to raluce the total tin:utcial warranty li+r <br />hul'Icrs." 'fhe text uf'I'IL- I'_ Curihcr states "f lendersun reyucsts a reduction in the financial warranty fi>r <br />the huller acres from 3`)3 acres to 75 acres..." and. "Henderson proposes that if unlbrcscen tinure <br />operational needs requur use ofbulfcr areas beyond 7i-acres, a tin;ntcial walrutty adjuslnu•nt would he <br />rcyuirral prior to any disturbance." 1 hr ^tfa.•tcd land boundary shown un the I R-12 maps utrrchuc with <br />Ills` 01;11)5 In1m I R-113, I Ile I'R-1' was ^pprovcd un January 23. ?(1(13. <br />On May 12, ?00(,• pcrntit :unendment AM•US M the licndcrson Pcnnit was suhmiltcd ut DRMti (then <br />U41Cil. (hc maps included with AM-OS show the ultim;de dant crest elevation at 59i)O lief, :out the <br />clef anon ul the ultinuuc interceptor canal Ilucluating hetwcrn 5931 feet and 393(1 lief. <br />The conclusions reached as a result of the DKMS rrs iew ol'thc Henderson permit file ;uc: <br />L 1'he canal construction proposed in r~M-11j and in the .luly 211U(+ GPP suhnuttal is within the current <br />;glproyed area of atlicted land. ,1s such. the eunslructiun of the ultintatc canal may proccal in <br />