2014-04-14_REPORT - M1980244

• Permit No: M1980244
• IBM Index Class Name: REPORT
• Doc Date: 4/14/2014
• Doc Name: Annual fee report & map
• From: Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company
• To: DRMS
• Email Name: TC1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

5- Assumptions
ASSUMPTIONS and PROCEDURES
CRIPPLE CREEK & VICTOR (CC &V) GOLD MINING COMPANY MINE LIFE EXTENSION 2 (MLE2)
RECLAMATION COST ESTIMATE
(Warranty Revisions of March 2014 by MDE)
Assumptions for the March 2014 Revision
1 Detailed approved reclamation plans from Amendment No. 10 for each facility (OBSA, mine area, etc.) form the basis for the
March 2014 revised cost estimate.
2 No changes have been made to the main parameters of work such as haul distances, volumes of topsoil, volumes of rock to haul,
etc.
3 The reclamation equipment list, equipment productivities, and other engineering details (such as map- derived quantities and
assumptions) are the same as approved in Amendment No. 10.
4 Standard references for costs were used: (1) Means 2014 Heavy Construction Cost Data, (2) Contractors Equipment Cost
Reference Guide (Q4 2013), (3) Cat Handbook, (4) Wagner Equipment Company's website for published 2014 rental rates, (5)
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment's website for labor costs, and (6) the Consumer Price Index website,
www.inflationdata.com.
5 Some "local costs" were obtained from actual CC &V experience such as: (1) the cost of water for rinsing and hydro - mulching
(source: K. Riley), (2) peroxide for rinsing (source: Thatcher Chemical Co. quote), and (3) monitoring costs from previous warranty
calculations updated by CPI ratio to 2014 dollars.
6 Some costs were obtained from vendors or websites where costs are posted directly. An example would be Arkansas Valley Seed
Company's 2014 pricelist for fertilizer and mulch.
7 Since this exercise was mainly focused on updating costs from 2011 dollars (Am. #10) to current 2014 dollars, the model
spreadsheet was modified by adding a tab at the end "2014 Costs ". This tab was linked (where possible) with the individual facility
worksheets.
8 There were minor discrepancies noted in the Am. #10 warranty, and these were addressed in this March 2014 update.
Procedures from the Amendment No. 10 Warranty Calculation - Did not change in March 2014 Update
1 Drawings & Autocad files of facilities were provided by CC &V staff. The processing of those drawings was perfomed as follows:
a. The End -of- Mining configuration, a.k.a. Post - Mining- Topography or PMT, was obtained from the 2025 AutoCAD Drawing and
checked against a pdf file overlay to ensure that it was correct. The latest version for 2025 was actually a Proposed 2025 version
that matched the pdf file 2023- 2025.pdf. There were minor modifications made to that file until a reasonable earthwork balance
was obtained for all of the mining areas - 1) it was assumed that WHEX would be totally backfilled to match the final reclamation
configuration, though the 2025 map showed an unfilled Mine Area. That was changed. 2) The top of SGOSA was scalped by an
amount equal to the amount filled in WHEX so that the two actions balanced each other. The adjusted configuration is plotted on
SA Drawing No. 7.
b. The Final Reclamation or Closure configuration is also called the Final Surface Contour or FSC on the drawings. The latest version
of the F! map was used, but with one modification. The nose of the hillside at ECME -Wild Horse was filled in on the mining map
(Item la above). Accordingly, the nose was digitally filled in for the FSC arrangement. The adjusted configuration on which the
estimate is haled is nlotted on SA Drawing No. R
C. TIN surfaces were assembled for each Reclamation Area and for the PMT and FSC configurations. The earthwork balance (i.e. the
necessary cut /fill to move from End -of -Mine to Closure) was digitally determined using AutoCAD Land Development Desktop. The
amount of Cut or Fill for 100 foot grids of each reclamation area are plotted on SA Drawing No. 9. Each reclamation area was
scanned by AutoCAD in N -S and E -W directions, providing a Mass Ordinate and cumulative cut /fill balance. That data was
transferred to an EXCEL spreadsheet wherein the centroid of the Cut (weighted by departure and volume) and the centroid of Fill
was determined. The average haul distance for that area can be approximated by the distance between those coordinate points,
shown on Drawing No. 9.
d. Areas that will be planted with trees include North and East Facing slopes. Those areas were delimited on the drawing and the
surface area was extracted. The results are shown on SA Drawing No. 10. High -wall areas that are to be fenced are also shown on
that drawing.
e. The Growth Media Drawing (C4b) provided by CC &V was overlaid onto the reclamation model so that the haul distances could be
measured.
Colorado Rule 6 section 6.34(2) requires accounting for the costs for reclamation ath the point of maximum disturbance. With
one exception, that will occur at the End -of- Mining. The exception is for WHEX Northeast Mine Area that will be mined out in
2018 and backfilled. Grassy Valley drainage will be reconstructed at that time, rather than at the end of mining.
3 No salvage value for equipment, buildings, or tanks has been figured into the reclamation cost model.
4 Trees will be planted on reclaimed slopes that are east or north - facing in aspect.
5 It has been assumed that no liming will be required to enhance the revegetation success.
7 The present model assumes there will be no off -load storage of leach material
9 The cost for chemical closure of the VLF was estimated in the same manner asin previous DRMS Estimates. Hydrogen peroxide
wash will be performed followedafter rinsing with two (2) pore volumes of water.