My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE125399
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
300000
>
PERMFILE125399
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:22:48 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 1:52:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977004
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
9/13/1984
Doc Name
Internal Memo
From
DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />Davitl H. Getchea Executive Director <br />Richard D. Lamm <br />Governor <br />T0: Mark Loye <br />FROM: Bob Liddle ~r~ <br />Permit #: Nl- 5'7 Z -cam ~{ Confidental?: <br />Class: d-C [ ~ Type-Seq.: <br />From: !G To: <br />Doc. Name: /J Q-(_ /--~~~-[® <br />Doc. Date (if no date stamp):__~ r- <br />Re: Homestake Pitch Project Amendment Response <br />File No. 77-4HR <br />DATE: September 13, 1984 <br />I have reviewed Homestakes's August 31, 1984 response to our comments. I <br />forward the following comments for your consideration. In general the <br />response along with our August 24, 1984 field trip has alleviated most of my <br />concerns. <br />1. The applicant adequately addressed all of my concerns regarding <br />hydrologic impacts. The final concensus reached was that hydrologic impacts <br />from the mine will be minimal. The analysis presented appears to be worst <br />case. Therefore some initial concerns such as encapsulating low grade ore <br />piles is no longer a problem, <br />Homestake did not commit to monitoring any leachate from the ore piles. I <br />feel a monitoring program would be very beneficial in verifying their <br />predictions. However, since their predictions are good I do not have much <br />basis to push this issue further. <br />2. The operator's response did not include a full list of water quality <br />data for the pit as we requested. They did however provide uranium and radium <br />data that indicated low levels. They also indicated that the discharge has <br />been meeting NPDES limits although they did not provide the data. Based on <br />this information I would have to assume that the pit water quality does not <br />pose any concerns for the post mining ,l and use. <br />3. In general Homestake addressed most of my drainage concerns. Even with <br />the revised runoff calcu]ations the drainage system is overdesigned. The only <br />item not addressed in detail was specific designs on handling drainage off the <br />pit slopes and benches. Page 18 of the August 31, 1984 Homestake submittal <br />contains bonding cost to cover additional engineering of drainage structures <br />such as the dam spillway, cascade structure,and final topography including <br />drainage. Homestake's position is that designing a detailed drainage plan is <br />not practical until the final topography is known. In the meantime bonding <br />costs are included to cover the future engineering that will need to be done. <br />Homestake has however discussed the kinds of drainage management that will be <br />done. <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />DAVID C. SHELTON, Director <br />423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (30Z) 866-3567 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.