2003-03-13_REVISION - M1977342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ann Beierle, Environmental Manager for the Henderson Operations agreed with the County's assessment of Amendment two (2) and that the trees and shrubs stocking rate of 40-50 per acre revision be eliminated, and that the stocking rates be done in accordance with the 1977 Reclamation Plan. The above change is reflected in a letter dated March 7, 2003 (attached hereto as Exhibit "A"), to the Chairman of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board from William D. Rech, Vice President and General Manager, Henderson Mine and Mill. The County recommends a trees and shrubs stocking rate of 400-435 per acre. The Company has requested that the requirement to plant trees and shrubs on the tailing deposition area be eliminated. It is not acceptable at this time to eliminate this requirement from the Company's original 1977 Reclamation Plan. The request to eliminate trees and shrubs plantings from this area should be included in the plan to create a developed water resource over approximately 70% of the tailings impoundment area, which it has been agreed will be considered through the Amendment process. Amendment three (3) involves retaining building at the Mine Site in Cleaz Creek County. It is our understanding that Cleaz Creek County and the Company are in discussions regazding the potential uses of buildings at the mine location. Grand County has no comments regarding this proposed amendment and it appears that this change is most important to Clear Creek County for future uses relating to long-range economic development. Grand County has no comment regarding Amendment three (3) as it is a Clear Creek County issue. Amendment four (4) proposes a conceptual alternative that would create a developed water resource over approximately 70 percent of the impoundment with the remaining 30 percent continuing under the dry cover scenario that is in the current Reclamation Plan for the tailings impoundment. The plan envisions a water storage pool along the west side of the tailing impoundments and developed aquatic and wetland habitat and cover over the remainder. To put it quite simply, the documentation provided for this amendment contains no supporting data which would indicate this is an acceptable alternative, either structurally or environmentally. The amendment ONLY raises many questions and issues, such as, but not limited to the following; (t) are the proper soil types present that aze conducive to prevent seepage and leaching out of the pond; (2) who is responsible for long term maintenance and operation of the dam, inlet/outlet structure and water treatment plant; (3) what defines long term maintenance, 5 years, 20 years or 100 years, and doesn't long term maintenance only increase the amount of financial warranty; (4) again, if reduction of financial warranty is the objective of this amendment, what are the reclamation costs (design, construction, maintenance and operation) of this proposed alternative; (5) what aze the consequences of a yeazs long or decade long drought (without a water source the tailings pond has a high potential to dry up and expose heavy metals and contaminants to the atmosphere by wind and water. In addition, mill tailings are generally difficult to vegetate, due to Page 4 of 9