PERMFILE71821

• Permit No: M1999058
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 7/12/1999
• From: SIERRA MINERALS CORP
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

hazardous azeas around the waste dumps. In the reclamation phase, these temporary fences will
be removed and the temporary chain link fencing in the quarry portals will be replaced with
permanent fencing as described in Exhibit D -Reclamation Plan.
Your paragraph nine (Part t): Your interpretation is correct.
Your paragraph ten (Part g): There is currently zero discharge of sediment into Yule Creek at the
toe of the waste pile. This is a result of redirecting the quarry water dischazge from the top of the
waste pile to a location duectly into Yule Creek east of Entry No. 3. The surface of the road
azound the south waste pile needs compaction that can be best accomplished by running the 988B
loader over it a few times. Based on experience with other roads on the waste piles, once the
surface has been compacted with normal traffic, sediment runoffis minimal. Compaction was not
completed by CYMC in the fall of 1998 before first snowfall. Additional sediment was mobilized
with the construction of the road. This sediment may have been carried to Yule Creek when
quarry water was discharged above this azea. Sierra plans no dischazge of quarry water in this
area. Sierra suggests that compaction with the loader, and close monitoring of the toe area of the
waste pile to be sure additional sediment is not reaching the creek is warcanted. Should,
significant amounts of sediment be observed to be reaching Yule Creek, Sierra will take steps to
reestablish the effectiveness of the sediment control structure at the toe of the waste pile in a
timely manner. Sietra believes it makes sense to delay this activity until there is a demonstrated
need, or a resolution to the offsite damage issue results in the reconstruction of the sediment
control structure as part of a general cleanup of the damage caused by CYMC. If there is a clear
need for further stabilization of the road, Sierra will add road base material or crushed rock to the
surface to prevent sediment mobilization.
Your paragraph 12 (Part i): Sierra believes it is currently in compliance with BMP's for its
Stormwater Management Plan and that a faulty situation is not continuing. This is based on
observations that the only time sediment has reached Yule Creek has been during times of quarry
water discharge into the waste piles. After the move of the discharge point, observations indicate
there is now zero discharge of sediment into Yule Creek. One of these observations was made
immediately following a heavy rainstorm in the Marble area. At that time, the area at the toe of
the waste pile was dry whh no new transport of sediment observed. These observations are
consistent with observations over the years since 1980 by the writer that very little sediment
transport occurs unless quarry water is discharged into the waste piles. Sierra believes the
purpose of the sediment control structure is to prevent sediment runoff in the event of an
unusually strong rain storm in the midst of spring runoff, and to provide for control of quarry
water discharge after reclamation But neither of these is an immediate problem. It can wait until
the other issues are settled. If, after Sierra gains full and clear title to WM2, and the resolution of
the ofisite damage issue does not result in reconstruction of the sediment control structure, Sierra
will reconstruct the structure at its expense. I have added reclamation funds to cover 3 days of
time for a large backhoe to reconstruct the structure should it be necessary.
Your paragraph fifteen (Part k): CYMC stored of waste oil in in 55 gallon drums, and then
transported the drums offsite. This resulted in a 75 cent per gallon charge for disposal. Storage
in a 1,000 gallon tank or larger will result in a 5 cerrt per gallon chazge for disposal. Sierra plans
to store waste oil in a 2,000 gallon tank underground until it is transported offsite by a permitted