2008-08-25_REVISION - M1980244 (3)

Home Browse Search

proposed final contours will be for this area. The currently approved final topography will not allow the operator's over all elevation to exceed 10,600 feet. As noted in drawing C-4 and F-1, elevations appear to exceed the allowable limit under AM-08, Is CC&V requesting an increase in height by approximately 35 feet to 10,635? Please explain. F. CC&V states, "Most of the activities discussed in section 5.0 are anticipated to take place prior to 2016, but may vary due to price of gold, weather conditions, and myriads of other factors, as such, time frames may vary, from those addressed in this document and the engineering designs contained in this document and are based on the best information currently available". The Division understands that all the factors mentioned by CC&V could affect the final outcome or change the proposed plan. However, DRMS, also has the responsibility to make sure the warranty posted for the proposed disturbances are worst case scenarios and any changes that could be the outcome of the reasons discussed above can be submitted as a future revision to the permit. Are the conceptual mining phases and overburden placement depicted in the conceptual drawing C-5 the worst case scenario through 2016, which will end the current proposed mining plan? Please explain. G. The old cabin owned by Mr. and Mrs. Raymond in the Clyde mining claim will likely be impacted by the proposed mining and blasting activities proposed under the current plan. How does CC&V plan to address this, when mining in close proximity to this structure? A timely letter of concern was sent to DRMS from the owner and subsequently passed on to CC&V. Please explain. H. ODIN Mining International sent a letter stating that they own "a portion of a claim in the proposed AM-09 mining area. They disagree with CC & V's claim to mine the joint claims under the Colorado common law which states, "a co-tenant in mining may mine and extract, mill and dispose of the ore subject only to the duty to account to the non working co-tenant for his or her proportionate share of the profits produced by the mining activities". This appears to be a civil matter outside the jurisdictional authority of the Division. CC&V has provided the legal right to access and mine the areas covered under permit # M-1980-244. Please provide a copy to ODIN Mining International. Another timely letter was also sent addressing similar issues, by Mr. William Cloister. Does CC&V has the right to mine this claim Please explain and also provide Mr. Collister your right to access and mine all claims covered under permit # M-1980-244. Are there any claims in the current permit area that are not indicated in the mining plan maps that are not owned by CC&V other than those indicated ? Please explain. I. Our engineering staff believes, in order for the rock slopes described in the AM-09 document to be stable, specialized blasting to create final pit walls would be required if DRMS were to reclaim the mine pits under bond forfeiture. Please provide a cost estimate to consider the point in the mine plan where the greatest surface area of mine slope would require reclamation blasting, which is not necessarily at the point of full mine out of the pits. If CC&V wants DRMS to consider reclamation blasting completed concurrently with the mine pits reaching the pit limits, then plans for concurrent reclamation blasting that will be enforceable under the terms of the permit must be provided. In order to avoid the confusion between the Matheson Engineering report and the narrative in the application, the following recommendation will be enforceable by DRMS. a) The blasting will be done using scaled distances of 43.8 for blasting in the North Cresson Mine area and 35 for all other mine bastings. 4