Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lawrence G. White, P.E. -2- October 28, 1994 <br />1. As stated in the approved permit document, and as verified by review of various available <br />aerial photographs, the Twin Pines No. 2 mine site was subject to extensive mining prior to <br />permitting under the current State of Colorado Permit No. C-83-058. It is our <br />understanding that the historic mining ended in 1971, with resumption of activities under <br />the new permit. The historic operations resulted in the existing highwall, and in the fill <br />material located downslope of the mine bench level, upon which the preexisting road is <br />located. It is also our understanding that the permit document approved by the State <br />acknowledged the fact that the downslope fill material pre-dates the currently permitted <br />operation, as evidenced by the fact that the approved permit boundary is located along the <br />road edge, and at the top margin of the pre-law downslope fill. <br />Please verify and/or correct any information provided above. <br />2. It is our understanding that the currently permitted operations did not, in any way, affect or <br />disturfi the outslopes of the pre-law downslope fill. It is also our understanding, following <br />site visits and study of aerial photographs, that the outslopes are well vegetated and <br />stabilized against erosion. Please verify or correct these understandings. <br />3. As requested by the landowner, and in conjunction with the approved post-mining land uses <br />of rangeland and wildlife habitat, the road which accesses the mine area is to be retained as <br />a permanent feature. Is this correct? <br />4. If the above information is correct, then the only available additional material available for <br />reclamation and backfilling of the Twin Pines No. 2 site is the fill material placed across <br />the Lewis Gulch for use as a loading area and sediment pond foundation. There is no <br />excess material; in fact, given the pre-law status of the mine site, there appears to be an <br />overall deficit of material available to completely backfill the highwall. Is this your under- <br />standing? <br />5. Please verify that the highwall was in existence prior to August 3, 1977, and that it has not <br />been expanded or enlarged as a result of the currently permitted activities. <br />6. Please verify that the mining at the Twin Pines No. 2 site was abandoned prior to <br />August 3, 1977, and reinitiated afrer August 3, 1977. <br />7. If the above information is correct, then the pre-law downslope material shall not be <br />removed, as allowed by Rules 4.14.1(2)(f)(iv) and (g)(iv). <br />8. Rule 4.14, as clarified at Rules 4.14.1(2)(e), (fJ, and (g), requires that all reasonably <br />available spoil shall be used to backfill highwalls, so as to achieve a safety factor of 1.3, to <br />the extent technically practical. If all of the above information is correct, and with the <br />current TR-07 submittal, there are approximately 2,500 cubic yards (cy) of material <br />reasonably available for use in backfilling the mine area. Is this correct? <br />