2013-06-10_PERMIT FILE - M2013028

Home Browse Search

JUN.10.2013 9 :14AM BUSINESS CONNECTION NO. 020 F.4 "tailings ponds" and more importantly whether these tailings areas, ponds or both will be secured against seepage into the natural drainage off the site,1 There are no references in the application to either dykes, retaining walls, or other structures to secure against affluent seepage off the site. S. The French Drain. As one tries to interpret the application, it appears that ore will be hauled from the mine pit to a wash plant that is located probably below the natural, snowmelt ponds. After washing, the water will course through a French Drain of unspecified length into a "slimes pond" for dewatering and recycling. (App. p. 17(i). "The sluice will de -water on the gEound in a shallow pond with a French drain." (App. p. 17 (m) (emphasis added) . Is the `slimes pond" the same as the tailings ponds or something different? How long is the French drain that the affluent will flow through from the wash plant to the slimes pond? Is the drain protected by dykes or retaining walls to prevent run off' is the slimes pond diked or :retained to prevent run off after drying? The application is silent on these critical points. 6. Decorative Rock - secondary eoamwdity. While not necessarily a concern of the Department of Natural Resources, the application states that the mining operation will not remove more than 70,000 tons of overburden in any year of operation. (App. p. 9. Item 2). 700,000 tons of decorative rock traveling over j dirt roads through a residential neighborhood over the j next ten years will unduly stress roads that t.'ie County has difficulty maintaining for safe passage without the is I note App. P. 17(l), The remark about detention structures having "two feet of freeboard" is not clear. Does this refer to the tailings ponds on the dawn slope eastern boundary of the site? Does the applicant consider "freeboard" to be a form of retention? I