2016-10-19_REVISION - M1980244

• Permit No: M1980244
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 10/19/2016
• Doc Name: Adequacy Review #2
• From: DRMS
• To: Newmont - CC&V
• Type & Sequence: AM11
• Email Name: TC1
• Email Name: ERR
• Email Name: AME
• Email Name: WHE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Mr. Jack Henris
October 19 2016
Page 3
m:\min\tc1\_teller\m-1980-244 cc-v\am -11\m-80-244-am-11-2ndmaincomment2016-10-19r4combined.docx
6.4.15 Exhibit O – Owner(s) of Record of Affected Land (Surface Area) and Owners
of Substance to be Mined
11. Response is adequate.
6.4.20 Exhibit T – Permanent Man-Made Structures
12. “Owners of land within 200 feet of the affected land…” Response is adequate.
13. The Division received a complaint from the Mollie Kathleen operators citing blasting from
another nearby underground operation causing safety issues. The response is not
adequate. Pursuant to Rule 6.5(4), at sites where blasting is part of the proposed mining or
reclamation plan, the Applicant shall demonstrate through appropriate blasting, vibration,
geotechnical, and structural engineering analyses, that off-site areas will not be adversely
affected by blasting. Based on the response that underground blasting will be “relatively
small”, the Division infers the surface blasting in the North Cresson pit will be much larger
and as this pit is closer to the Mollie Kathleen than the proposed underground workings, the
blasting analyses demonstration should include both the underground blasting (as cited in
the complaint) and the blasting in the North Cresson pit.
6.4.21 Exhibit U – Designated Mining Operation Environmental Protection Plan
Project Description
14. Page 4-5, 3rd bullet. Flow and saturation in wetlands and other areas of Grassy Valley…
Response is adequate.
15. Page 4-6, Section4.6.1 Surface Water. Response is adequate.
16. Page 5-10, Section 5.3.4 Mine Area Stability. Response is adequate.
17. Page 5-15, Section 5.4.3 Underground Hauling and Mucking. Response is adequate.
18. Page 5-15, Section 5.4.4 Schedule. Planned raise bore to allow sufficient ventilation
Response is adequate.
19. Pages 5-17 to 5-18, Section 5.6.2 East Cresson Overburden Storage Area. ECOSA
footprint… Response is adequate.
20. Page 7-1, Section 7.2.1 Stability Analysis. Response is adequate.
21. Page 11-1, Section 11.1 Surface Water. CC&V’s commitment to provide the Division with
surface water quality data on a quarterly basis beginning with Q3 2016 is adequate.
22. Figure 11-1, Water Monitoring Locations. Response is adequate.
23. Page 12-12, first Paragraph - Chicago Tunnel Portal Area / Underground Mining. Response
is adequate.
24. Page 12-13, fourth paragraph – VLF re-contour. The response is not adequate. A review
of the reclamation cost estimate in the response referenced Appendix 11, Vol. IV, p. 54 of
109 does not explicitly indicate cross-contour ripping. The Division is not convinced that
cross-contour ripping will sufficiently control erosion on such a long slope. In addition, the