2008-08-25_REVISION - M1980244 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

pumping rate. Granted the ADR will still process at the current rate of 14,900gpm so no additional processing facility is proposed at this time. The additional pumping rate will go through the enrichment tanks located west of the ADR and will be applied somewhere on to the pad. The model is supposed to predict when that solution will report to the pregnant pond and allow some lag time so when it does report to the pregnant ponds, it will still be under the 80 % maximum operational capacity. Can CC&V explain why this model is any different than applying solution on to the pad and waiting for the solution to report as pregnant solution in to the ponds and be pumped to the ADR, for gold recovery? Even under the current pumping rates,(14,900gpm) on numerous occasions in the past, CC&V had to take emergency pumping measures to transfer solution from one pond area to another pregnant pond area, due to the levels getting closer to the 80% maximum operating permit condition. In order to satisfy the Division's concerns, the DRMS would like to see how the wettest years on record as reported in the Rigi station ( the station should have good recorded data since 2000) correlate with the pregnant pond levels.. The data for the pond levels should be available because CC&V keeps a good record of such data in the ARD building control room for the ponds. The pond levels should mimic the results from the model projections. The model assumes a 30% porosity for the ore to derive the pore volume yield. Dori t the lower lifts have an already established preferential path flow? If not, is each time a lift added and solution applied, does a different flow path become established? Please explain Z. Most of the drainage plan for the storm water hydrology was approved under Amendment # 8. The criterion used to evaluate the AM-09 area is the same as was approved in Amendment # 8. The only exception was a higher curve number used for the East Cresson overburden storage area due to the proposed engineered design with low infiltration cover. The Division agrees with the higher curve number. The Division also agrees with the use of the two 10 year 24 hour events to design the storm water BMP ponds. CC&V plans to enhance some of these ponds and leave some of them in place post mining as stock ponds. Prior to the Division, allowing these ponds to remain in place post mining, CC&V will have to contact the State Engineer's Office to make sure loss due to evaporation from these ponds is applied for by the land owner (CC&V) in their water substitute supply plan. It would assist the public and any reviewer if the sub watershed delineation maps were at a scale of 1 inch to 800 feet. The sub water delineation maps as submitted are very hard to follow even for those people who are familiar with the project. Please provide a sub-watershed delineation map as requested. VII) Exhibit H- Wildlife Information-Rule 6.4.8 A. The DRMS has forwarded comments from the Colorado Division of Wild Life. Does CC&V Agree with the suggested recommendations? Please acknowledge. VIII) Exhibit L-Reclamation Costs-Rule 6.4.12 CC&V provided a detailed reclamation cost estimate utilizing the cost estimate based on the Caterpillar Performance Handbook (33-36th edition) for backfilling and grading costs which is in line with DRMS bonding calculation program. Calculations for revegetation costs are based on the actual seed mixes. Demolition costs are taken directly from the latest versions of R.S. Means Heavy Construction Cost Data for 2008, then using dimensions of the structures and simply applying an appropriate cost per unit volume. The detoxification cost, as in the past, utilized two pore volumes of water rinse with a series of resting and rinsing periods followed 14