Laserfiche WebLink
NEWMONT <br /> GOLDCORR <br /> With the exception of Figures 1 and 4 (labeled Figure 3, and neither of which include the <br /> date of the aerial image), the figures in the TR-114 submittal do not conform to the <br /> standard in Rule 6.2.1(2). <br /> a) Please resubmit Figures 2 and 3 to conform to Rule 6.2.1(2). Figure 3 only needs <br /> a "Figure 3- Power Pole Location"label. <br /> b) Please resubmit Figure 4 (Power Pole Location) with a Figure 4 title, instead of <br /> the Figure 3 as in the original. <br /> c) In lieu of resubmitting Figures 1 and 4 with the date of the aerial image, please <br /> provide the date of the image in your response to this adequacy letter. <br /> Figure 1 details the plan view of the silo and associated structures. All following figures <br /> include the most current proposed location and associated designs. Figure 2 details the <br /> layout of the silo and associated conveyor with traffic patterns. Figure 3 details the <br /> design of the silo and associated structures. Figure 4 details the location of a single <br /> power pole needed for the new silo location. Please refer to "Figure 3: Silo Drawings" <br /> from the April 15 submission for detailed designs of the silo that is proposed for <br /> relocation. <br /> a) All figures included in this submission conform to the standard in Rule <br /> 6.2.1(2). <br /> b) Figure 4 (Power Pole Location) has been updated to include the single power <br /> pole needed for the new location of the silo. For comparison, the original <br /> submission on April 15 included two power poles at the previously proposed <br /> location. <br /> c) The date of the aerial image utilized in all figures is July of 2017. <br /> 2) Layout - Retaining Wall: The narrative on page 1 states the retaining wall is 100 feet <br /> long by 30 feet high. Figure 2 and the Attachment 1, SRCE Calculation indicate the wall <br /> is 20 feet high. Please clarify the height of the proposed retaining wall. <br /> The design associated with the new location does not include a retaining wall, as <br /> detailed in figures described in CC&V's response to comment number 1, above. <br /> 3) Layout - Conveyor: The DRMS is required to ensure adequate bonding is posted for all <br /> mining related permanent structures. The narrative does not discuss whether the <br /> proposed conveyor is a fixed, permanent structure or a mobile/portable structure. Please <br /> clarify the nature of the proposed conveyor and if fixed/permanent, provide dimensions <br /> of the conveyor and any concrete appurtenances. <br /> The conveyor will be a fixed structure, with two steel support poles, as shown in Figure <br /> 3. SRCE costs, included in Attachment 1 of this submission, have included these details <br /> as well as the concrete appurtenances. <br /> 4) Financial Warranty: The narrative on the second page, second sentence states the <br /> associated reclamation cost is $10,350. The third sentence states the grand total is the <br /> same $10,350. Referencing the SRCE calculations in Attachment 1: the first two sheets <br /> appear to indicate the demolition cost for the building, wall, and slab in $9,221. No <br /> mention is made in the SRCE sheets for pole removal, the last six SRCE sheets suggest <br /> the combined earthworks cost for the silo site reclamation is $622. If the $9,221, $507 <br />