2003-01-14_REVISION - M1977342 (3)

Home Browse Search

impoundment (Area 4) from a dry cover and "open forest" to a partial wet cover with "Developed Water Resource" for that portion that is wetted. 2.1 Deletion of Area 23 The acreage to be deleted from the Permit azea is permit azea 23 (Lost Creek Reservoir) and is shown on Map 1 in Exhibit C. The total acreage for deletion is 658 acres, of which 50 acres are considered "affected" and are covered under the FW. Area 23 was added to the Permit area in AM-Ol, dated January 7, 1981. At that time, Henderson was planning to construct a reservoir on Lost Creek within the boundaries of its wholly owned Lost Creek Ranch. It was determined at that time, that only 50 acres would require coverage under the F W because the remaining acreage would be in a permanent developed water reservoir. However, these plans changed with the depression in the world-wide molybdenum market in the early 1980s and the general curtailment and closure of primary production molybdenum mines. As with all primary molybdenum producers, Henderson radically reduced operating costs and production, thus eliminating the need for development of the Lost Creek Reservoir. The 50 acres of affected lands within the 658 acre area 23 was covered under the FW as "buffer", and thus, was not s cifical v defined. Hence, the rationale for incorporating deletion of the entire acreage block info AM-04 is primarily to delete the smaller area of affected land. Deletion of this block of affected land in AM-04 wil t reduce the FW accordingly because the issue of reduction of the total Henderson "buffer" acreage (and concomitant FW reduction) is addressed specifically in TR-12. Z.Z Change in General Post-mining Land Use The present post-mining land use for the entire Henderson Permit azea is "Open Forest". This land use was incorporated into the original permit in 1977, and is defined in Section 9.1 of that Permit. In TR-12, Henderson proposed to change the post-mining land use for the entire Permit area to "Rangeland" in order to reduce the significant F W costs associated with tree-planting. DMG's Adequacy Letter for TR-12, dated October 2, 2002 stated (No. 9), "The Division has determined that the total elimrnation of tree and shrubs from the reclamation plan would require an amendment to the permit as a significant change in the reclamation plan. " Included within No. 9, the DMG included athree-point counter-proposal (that could be approved within the TR) that eliminated trees on areas of 5 acres or less, eliminated trees but added shrub "islands" on the tailings impoundment, and reduced the numbers of trees on azeas greater than 5 acres. Given the 5