_REVISION - M1980244 (31) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

„.'~ 3 baclcfillgd as part of the Squaw Gulch Overburden Storage Area ("SGOSA"). This activity is shown in Phase 3:: ' In summary, the depictions of operational "Phases" are designed to show the areas active at the points in the progression of planned operations. If an activity is completed or is replaced by another category of activity'thc past activity is no longer shown on the dcpictiotts. B. Ane:rhere plans to use any of the currently reclaimed area as part ojthe expansion of the overburden storage area in Squaw Gulch. Conceptual Mine Phase Map, Drawing C-S, Phase I and 77 show co»ctrrrent conceptual reclamation area to be within the SGOSA footprint. Il'owever, Phase III and IV do riolFsltow these reclaimed areas to the north. Please explain. Reaponaer Portions of previously reclaimed areas may be integrated into future mine plans. Those areas that become a part of the future operations will ultimately be reclaimed in a manner that is compatible with the other Amendment No, 8 reclamation arena. Topsoil will be salvaged from the reolaimed areas in the same manner as from other mine areas. In the north portions of the SGOSA, the concurrent reclamation shown in Phases 1 and 2 is the Victor Pad and Ironclad tailing area. Once these areas aze shown as reclaimyd during a particular phase, future phases do not depict these areas. This is consistent with the approach used for the mine developments discussed in the previous response. C. On Page 37, the Operator states, "Due to the fact that AM-08 will be implemented over many years, it is passible; chat addieienal information may be generated that would need to be submitted to the OMLR prior tn;=constructtan of certain project components. " All changes to what is submitted under this Amendment (AM-08f requires either a verbal or written approval from rka Division prior to itspl~mentation. All changes, which are considered significant, require a revision sttbmitlal to the Division and approval prior to implementation. i _.,,,: Response: ~'Fhe:'quoted discussion was intendod to mean that CC&V would provide, as necessary, the AMLIt with more detat7ed desigts for certain project elements after approval of Amendment No. B. The more detailed designs, as necessary, would integrate any changes based on information from field surveys, further;investiPations, or technological improvements. CC&V recognizes that submittal of any such addntional information will require OMI.R review and approval. D. T7+e30peraror states on page 38, that the overburden to ore ratio rs Z; 1. .. . ' ~.c iS'. 1.: , :Is this based on actual figures or an estimate? Resp~nse:.The ratin provided is calculated using actual ore and overburden information available from drill holes and projecting this information into areas where less drill hole data are available to calculate oxerallore and overburden volumes for the mine areas. This is based on reserve estimates calculated in January;2000. i~ :5,.r 2,~~ d ; ; E;;Since there is already in place approximately 70 million tons of ore is it safe to assume there is -' g'.ialready 140 million tons of overburden presently located in AGGSA and SGOSA? ~R ltespaaae: The 2:1 overburden to ore ratio is an overall ratio where et any one point in time, activities maybe below, above, or at this ratio, As of May 2000, then were approximately S4 milGon ore tons and 84 millionoverburden tons mined. Them are an estimated 30 million tons in the AG~SA and an estimated 54 million tons in Che SGOSA, Note that this demonstrates a slightly lower strip ratio (approximately 1.6:1) than 2:1 for materials mined to date. r~';~z ..' ta;r . ;~~