Laserfiche WebLink
permit boundary. In Amendment H, Newmont proposed, at DRMS's request, to match <br /> the disturbance boundary with the permit boundary. <br /> 26. Page 13-3, Section 13.2 Project Financial Warranty Requirements. <br /> • The second to last sentence indicates"the financial warranty will be reviewed on a <br /> periodic basis and adjusted accordingly". Please be reminded that CC&V committed to <br /> providing a reclamation cost update biannually with the annual report. The 2016 cost <br /> update will be accounted for with this AM-11 review process. <br /> RESPONSE. Comment noted. <br /> 27. Page 13-6, Section 13.8 Summar. <br /> • The last sentence states"The overall costs will be incrementally posted as disturbances <br /> occur". In order to prevent the Division from having to assess bond adjustments on the <br /> mine after each inspection (currently monthly) and tracking these, please provide a <br /> reasonable number of milestones (based on mine development, rather than calendar) for <br /> which an incremental surety increase will be required. (Note:MLE2/AM-10 phased the <br /> bond increments into three phases based on the SG VLF construction phases). <br /> RESPONSE:Newmont plans to increase required surety bond amounts when new <br /> phases of facilities are constructed. For example: Phase H of SGVLF is considered a <br /> construction phase and will be bonded at the time of construction. <br /> VOLUME III—APPENDICIES 3 THROUGH 8 <br /> 28. Appendix 3, Baseline Technical Report. <br /> • There appears to be a large discrepancy in the affected area boundary in Figure 1, <br /> specifically"Survey Area 2"that appears to be the NE corner of the NE '/a of Section <br /> 16. This area is excluded in the amended Amendment 11 boundary submitted as Figure <br /> 2 in CC&V's amended Amendment application dated February 11, 2016. Please explain <br /> or provide an updated figure consistent with the amended Amendment 11 boundaries. <br /> RESPONSE: DRMS's comment is noted. The area in question was not included in the <br /> December 2015 Amendment 11 Application or the February 2016 Amended Amendment <br /> 11 application because the proposed boundary was modified during the planning phases <br /> of the project. An initial proposed boundary for Amendment 11 during the conceptual <br /> stages of Amendment 11 considered including the corner of Section 16 within the <br /> proposed permit boundary. At the time Arcadis was retained to conduct the wildlife/ <br /> vegetation survey, this area was still being proposed. At a later date, the decision was <br /> made to not expand the permit boundary in this area because doing so would require a <br /> rezoning of the Cripple Creek Mining Overlay District boundary. The area identified in <br /> Arcadis'report as Study Area 2 was not needed for the activities proposed in <br /> Amendment 11. Note, the decision to not include this area was made after Arcadis had <br /> finished its work and released its final report. The work that Arcadis performed on this <br /> area may be used at a later date should Newmont decide to expand its permit boundary <br /> in this area therefore we would prefer not to amend the Arcadis map or report at this <br /> time. <br /> 29. Appendix 4, Review of Blasting Studies at CC&V. <br /> • MMC recommends confirmation of the relatively low vibrations created in underground <br /> blasting by measurement with calibrated seismographs once the underground blasting <br /> Page 12 of 30 <br />