2003-01-27_REVISION - M1999004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINING PLAN (changed) area and haul only that which can be turned into product to the main plant. This will still require batch processing from each area, but is far more workable and economical than two processing plants. The pre-processing facility would mainly screen out that material that clearly cannot be used as is or crushed into appropriate sizes. This avoids the need to haul unusually large amounts of unusable material back to the secondary processing area. That unusable material can stay there and be used for reclamation backfill. In an earlier portion of this exhibit some discussion was provided regarding the sequence of operation through the three areas. Although the sequence through Area A and B is fairly self evident, the sequence of mining in the large Area C is not so apparent. Area C could be operated in a variety of directions. There are a number of considerations that dictate how it should be mined. First, is control of drainage from the mined areas. Second, visual impact on views from Highway 115. Third, control of the elevation at the end of the mining and linking to adjacent undisturbed land. And fourth, is reclamation sequencing. Afrer considering all these factors it becomes apparent that only one approach to Area C adequately addresses all factors at once. When Area B is completed, the first and second cuts for Area C will be across [he northern edge of the mesa. These cuts can be made by "pushing" a wall across the northern side of Area C. The final result should be near full excavation of the northern edge of Area C, being careful to observe the setback rules defined elsewhere. This will create a wall on the south side of the cuts which will become the future working face. There should also be a wall on the north side of the cuts. The width (north-south dimension) of the cut should be sufficient to allow for easy movement within the cut and full compliance with applicable safety requirements. The length though should be completely across the east-west dimension of Area C. From that point on, mining in Area C will proceed southward (downhill) toward the south edge of the mesa. In this way, visual impact from the mining will be limited. Not only will there usually be tall trees on the south side of the mining area, but the working face itself will obscure much of the mining. Stripping of land ahead of the mine (downhill) can produce soils that can immediately be spread behind the mining (uphill) to implement reclamation as quickly as possible. Thus, as the mine moves southward and the reclamation progresses behind, very little of the actual operation should be visible from anywhere except the air. View angles from Highway 115 are very ]ow because the slope of the land is only slightly steeper than the angle of the sight line. It would be best if the working face is kept notched to allow drainage to flow through the wall to land south of the working face, but with a 25 to 30 foot wall, that may be difficult to accomplish. Alternatively, the shape of the working face should be bowed with the high point more or less in the middle (see Exhibit C-2). That way water can flow to each end of the cut and be dealt with in confined areas there. In no case, should water from the mining areas simply be allowed to flow over the edge of the mesa wherever it finds a place to do so. Drainage from the quarry will be controlled with small sediment basins and directing the clean water either onto land south of the working face where the natural vegetation could benefit from the water or over the side of the mesa using pathways that already exist. There are many locations along the south side of the mesa where "pour offs" are found- and these will be utilized. Once the mining face approaches the south side of the mesa, the mining must be altered. Because the south end of this area has its lowest point at the most southerly point, it is apparent that all post-mining drainage will tend to flow to that point if a wall is left on the north side of the mesa edge. Furthermore, there is a considerable hazard that leaving a final wall or even a backfilled slope along the south side of the mining operation would encourage seepage through the remaining quartzite and eventually could cause the south edge of the mesa to collapse. Even leaving a 100 foot barrier along the south edge is probably insufficient to maintain [he long term integrity of the rim Table Mountain Quarry -Castle Concrete Company Exhibit D (Amendment 11 Page 7