2006-02-01_REVISION - M1983141 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5, The Applicant has stated that there will not be designated ehemieals on site for metallurgical processing and that there are no toxic or acid-forming materials to be exposs:c3 or ilisturlretl as a result of the proposed operation. The Applicant has also provided a geoflogie evalua#ian t3y'#fl. VU. P,'fliiRlgr assessing the acid generating potentia{ in wail rock aad ore materials via examinatiom of vein maateriai and wall rock specimens. fllpon review of this information, it is the I4ir~asion's position that ttaeu+e is a reasonslb-~ yv~utanttia- t-aat Ishtar pmuprased vnindng operation xaay be a Designated IVtining flpecation ~D1ifiQB), as defined in Y2uIle fl.i{fly)- At this stage in the review of the amendment applcication, there is inconeGusive evidience to wce~ify that the proposed operation should be exempt from the re4uiremenLs of l2u-e 7, >psa;n~4~a;im.i¢ii; t-o ilJC~Pd~';~.. 1~'aa~ih~:r'-aye#2a~3,ngir axaad gaaa~ts~nai~d tvaIlu~ataaa~n es nax~ded to asss~ss #-ae''`RrascIlunna; ~v:ater alasa-ity" fiPr the Gash I1R'rne as well as the potential for exposure or disturbance of toxic or acid forming; nanate¢iaBs {€aa^t, trmilir€.ys), au~d potential for acid mine drainage ~taitings -eachate and/or discYrae•gIl€: c>;-' naiE~c waCcr}.. 't'~ttar t~;lal~~r•Lirtr-sa1~ ~~htws ~s!tad~iil t~latat 9Ilac ~ir~s~ tY#'uv~s ~aruR- ~ :a zer~erdiscdearge facnIlnty, and it as i'IQC'TDiwi~dos';n nan~-a;rsda~ms-ing t-aat t-ar; Applicant wi9i provide a ehars-eterization of baseln-e water alua-ity within the mine. L~Ilease proviaka~, a Yiee~e sclirce.-GCkc leer valreec YIr4c geochemical evaluation of waste rock andlor tailings wi-- ft~e ca~recp-etee-„ lrs meetings voids the 1ivision, the Appli:;ant understood that I3TJl® determination would be divorced from dre anaendrneniproeess. The Applicant reiterates that no designated chemicals have hseen or will Is<; stored an site. As stated in the amendment application (Exhibit C - 2(a}, tfiere will be no tailings produced, s~fored, ar otherwise handled on site. t~M{> siai.us as dinned o Rule 1.1{14) is triggered by the exposure of toxic ar acid generating materials, ar the potential far acid drainage to scour, Irr review of the definition of Acid Ivfine I}rainage, the Applicant notes tlEat the Uffce (Iivision) "wilt. consider natural pre-mining acidity and metals aercurrenc:e is bulrack, soft, graundwatar and sw~ce tivater". The t~pplicant subrr~iis-Chat nearly all water sampling up and dovm- gradieut of the Cash tJline art=s indicate a natural water pH of 5 - tI {Data included in Appendix of this fetter). Litmus tests performed on Ianuary 30.31, 2QfY6 in and around the available mine workings reflect the same values. The Applicant also observes that the spars;, 'intermittent -water drips in the wino waikings appear to become more neutral as this water is exposed to oxygen. The aperatian, dating back fa the l 4133 permit application has not been sul?jectcd to a wholesale geoehernieal ar hydralo~cal evaluation. These types of cfiaracterizatians c~arr be costly, tune consuming st~tdie:;, toad have never ds,-ernui necessary by any previous operrtor, the Division, the Army Corps ai'3:`ngineers or any other agency to date. The Gold 1•Fi17 I~istrietcn the Boulder telluride belt fins heeu noted far ifs mxique, low sulphide, late-stage arineralizafian. `I'he gcxrlabry aE the district is well publishui in U.3. U.S. pr~olcss-iz~rittl ~{tal>er1,2.3 {l,uvering curl Godd~~l) tmd in ihe'1'elluride dares of 13ouldu~r County, {l~etly sand Goddard). Assooiated carbonate mineralization as noted by ragi:,fercxl geologist,l3rian Alers, }tA in a rec=ent (2005} report on his ob;;cr, r~aiians ra~itlrnr. the available workings reinforce; flee neutraliz~ttian patcnfial of tFxc t~eirr material.