_REVISION - M1980244 ‎(31)‎

• Permit No: M1980244
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Name: Adequacy Response
• From: Cripple Creek & Victor Gold
• To: DMG
• Type & Sequence: AM8
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

F,
...

1 ~i

r,`:
r 10
~i: : k 1
r}I .
Responses ~urfeatly, CC&V plans to remove the Ironclad Mill tailing and place the material on the VLF with
ctuahedCresson ores. If the plans change and the material will not be placed on the VLF, CC&V will
detoxify the malarial to meet applicable standards prior to reclamation in place, or removal and
placement in another location. In addition, CC&V will provide the OMLR with a proposed revision to
the pert'itit describing any change in the disposal location.
1. Under SGOSA, the operator states once the maximum footprint has been reached, the slopes will be
graded.~to final overall grade of Z-SK•1. More steep and less steep section of slopes will be formed
witJir"n_ ibis overall slope to generate irregular land forms. I~ltat it a "more steep and less steep slope?
- Pleaseljtiant~. Thefinancial warranty is based in 2.5 to 1 slope, any changes will require written
app'ro'vdf
Response: Thg,description of graded slopes for reclamation is virtually identical to the descriptions approved in
Amendment No, 7. The intent of the reclamation plan is to achieve slopes that roflcct, to the extent
possible, the native terrain. In addition, when blending the reclaimed areas to the surrounding terrain,
thi' native topography is often not exactly 2.SH:1 V in all places. It may be steeper or gentler. In order
to aohic've a natural ]ookingposl-mining topography and blend into the native terrain, it is necessary and
appopriate for slopes to be varied within the overa112.5;1 criteria. This is achieved by making short
lengths: of slope slightly steeper or shallower than 2.5:1. However, the overall slope of 2.5:1 is
maintained as described in Section 11.0 of the Amendment No. 8 application. Overall slopes steeper
than those described in the Amendment No. 8 application will be presented to the OMLA for review and
approval.
1'. ~ ' ° '"Are there plans to place 8-l0 feet wide benches along the reclaimed slopes as approved in AM-
?07? Cinder this Amendment application, it s not clear if the operator is going to construct these
"'' ` i' ^`benches. Please explain.
f:
Response: sTlie` decision to reclaim using terraces or benches will be made in the field during reclamation.
These bi;nches will not necessarily 6e 6-10 feet wide as in Amendment Na. 7, but rather will be benches
of varying widths, not as readily visible. The decision will be based on the length and steepness of
slope;;:T'he purpose of the terraces is to slow the overland flow of water to minimize erosion and
associated soil loss. Once reclamation is complete, including trees and shrubs, the terraces should not
be it;ad]y visible. Note that, as discussed above, the terraces aze primarily to reduce water velocity and
thereby mtnimizing erosion and soil loss. To the extent that tetraccs or benches arc utilized, CC&V will
ep~eaupr to blend these features into the surrounding tettain, as has been accomplished on the upper
lifts ofahe AC~OSA and discussed in Section V.C. above.
,t
VI. EXT~TI~IT F -Reclamation Plan Map Drawing F-1 (post tnining topography plan)
A. Rule 6:4.6 (b) requires the map to show the proposed topography of the area with contour lines of
a+u~cieitt detail to portray the direction and rate ofslope ojall reclaimed lands. From the map
provided, it is even difficult to tell what the corstour interval isfor each area proposed to be reclaimed
with tlie:esception of the VLF. Please provide a map with the appropriate topographic details.
~~~,,,;
Response::; i~Fevised Figure F-1 with contour intetvals clearly indicated is included with this submittal as
Attaohnent 5.
e•„~'
.. ~'
n ,
'r
k