Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Gold Hill Mill 5 March 27, 1995 <br />enter these claims. The rules simply require description by township, <br />range, and section, to the nearest quarter-quarter section. A revised <br />Exhibit A should be submitted that is limited to such a description. In <br />addition, the permit application form, item 9, indicates that the site is <br />in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 12, while the <br />legal description in Exhibit A indicates that the site is in the southeast <br />quarter of the northwest quarter of section 12. Please clarify this <br />discrepancy. The Exhibit A - Location Map - submitted is not sufficiently <br />legible to be useful, and is not of an acceptable scale. A standard <br />1:24,000 scale U.S. Geological Survey map, or clear and legible facsimile <br />thereof, must be submitted with the location of the proposed operation <br />shown and labelled with the mill site name. <br />14. The application states that the mill is situated northeast of the <br />Oscar shaft. Please locate and depict the Oscar shaft of the Mining Plan <br />map or maps. <br />15. It is stated in the application that if any additional structures or <br />buildings are found to be necessary, they will be built in the area <br />encompassed by the boundaries of this permit application. Please <br />acknowledge your understanding that a technical revision would have to be <br />filed and approved before any additional structures could be erected, and <br />that additional bond may be required for demolition and disposal if the <br />proposed structures do not fit in with the approved post mining land-use. <br />16. A portion of the application submittals indicates that the Mine <br />Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) inspector that visited the site <br />in 1994 was satisfied that the impoundment was installed correctly. In <br />fact, the MSHA inspection report stated that the impoundment upland <br />diversion ditch "is not very well maintained and should be upgraded", and <br />further stated that the decant pipes are "not capable of safely passing <br />the quantity of water that could be expected during a design storm". The <br />MSHA report also recommended widening the embankment crest and flattening <br />the dam outslope, and stated that existing freeboard was not in keeping <br />with "current prudent engineering practice". Please acknowledge these <br />shortcomings as noted in the MSHA report. <br />17. The application indicates that a fence will be erected around the <br />entire mill complex. Such a fence has not been in place during the <br />previous years of Gold Hill Mill operation, and the Division does not see <br />a compelling reason to require such a fence now. You should eliminate the <br />reference to a mill complex perimeter fence from the application, <br />otherwise the fence would become a binding permit requirement. The <br />existing fence around the tailing impoundment will be required, and must <br />be expanded and maintained as needed. Please provide a statement <br />committing COM, Inc. to maintaining a tailing perimeter fence up to the <br />time that the tails will be reclaimed. <br />18. The application states that the tailing pond was built by the <br />upstream method. This statement implies that one or more raises have been <br />