PERMFILE135175 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The next paragraphs in part (c) include brief new language clarifying that Sierra will not dump fines on the existing waste rock pile until the sediment control structure is re-established (adequate to ensure compliance with existing CDPHE discharge limitations) and that Sierra will not redisturb existing slopes which may be an area to be included in the Board's finding of a possible violation caused by CYMC. For the record, the Division presently interprets the operator's statement to refer to the area of existing waste rock slopes outside the permit area boundaries of CYMC. There are existing waste scopes inside the boundary, which though left in an unreclaimed condition, are not considered at this time to be a problem or possible violation. That (north) portion of the proposed permit boundary will be identical to CYMC's existing one. Those particular onsite areas, though, since the}' are within an area of proposed future waste dumping, will require careful placement of new waste material, if future slope stability is to be ensured, and future problems caused by Sierra are to be avoided. However, most of the waste slope areas proposed to be used lie within the White Marble #2 Claim, for which there is presently no proof of right-of-entry. Material submitted by Cindy Bargell, on behalf of the operator, includes a statement to the effect that the operator will not affect any portion of the White Marble #2 Claim until the time of the acquisition of a sheriffs deed vesting title in and to that claim property, and nntil providing this office with evidence of such deed. At that time, the Division will review those documents for consideration of evidence of right-of--entry for purposes of mining and reclaiming. At this time, the operator has stated that he does not wish to anrend the application to exclude the White Marble #2 Claim property from the total proposed permit area, but commits to not affecting it in any way. (The Division's comments about this commitment will be included under Exhibit G, below.) Part (e) now includes a clarification of the questions about the dewatering pipe, generator trailer and fencing during operations: The pipe (1.5"poly tube) will extend from the old south portal in an easterly direction to "Outfall 001" (new discharge location approved by CDPHE), and be placed a few inches below the soil surface. Reclamation will involve simple manual removal. Care should betaken during installation to provide for pipe drainage at all low spots to prevent freezing water from rupturing the pipe during winter (when dewatering presumably will not occur). Additional comments about the discharge are included below under part (h). The generator trailer, presently considered to be in a stable location, may be moved to a location underground. The fuel tank location will not be changed. Moving the generator is a minor change, since it is portable equipment and current surface disturbance associated with its installation and removal are minimal. The operator holds an underground diesel permit. Underground placement of the generator must be where adequate secondary contairunent of fluids is assured. The only questions at this time involve the fuel line: where will be the expected location of the fuel line, the type of fuel line material, and if it will be buried or left on the surface. Please clarify. There will be 500 feet of temporary fencing (presumably 6-foot tall chainlink style) on the site during mining. This style and height will be used for bonding purposes (i.e., cost of removal during reclamation), unless the applicant responds that different details should be used for calculations. The applicant states under part (f) that during the course of mining an additional 200,000 tons of marble waste may be "added to the waste piles." The next sentence seems to state that an additional three acres will be added to the existing waste pile area. These statements appear to indicate that the existing waste pile areas will be affected by placement of new material, and that about three acres of new waste pile areas will be created on currently undisturbed land. Please clarify if this interpretation is incorrect. Part (g) now includes a brief desciption of the road around the south waste pile onsite. The operator states that the surface will be stabilized through the addition of material. However, this office feels that drainage control must also be addressed to ensure stability and sediment control. This is felt to be necessary due to observed sediment movement on the road during the 6/3/99 inspection, and the applicant's statement about increased sedinren[ transport to Yule Creek since the road's construction in 1995. In addition to surfacing the road, for example,