2008-09-17_REVISION - M1980244 (28)

Home Browse Search

• A. The DRMS has forwarded comments from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Does CC&V agree with the suggested recommendations? Please acknowledge. Response: The requests made by CDOW are agreeable and addressed in item V) F. 1. Improve Wildlife Migratory Corridors: CC&V agrees with this comment and would continue to work the CDOW to implement wildlife migratory corridor consideration as final reclamation activities are completed at the facilities. 2a Native Species Planting: CC&V agrees with this comment and addressed in item V) F. CC&V will continue implement seed species into the reclamation seed mix as final reclamation activities are completed at the facilities. 2b Noxious Weed Control: CC&V agrees with this comment and would continue to actively control noxious weed on CC&V owned property in the district. 3 Ponds for Water Source for Wildlife: CC&V agrees with this comment and would endeavor as legally and operationally feasible for a majority of storm water management ponds associated with the project to remain in place as part of final reclamation plan for the facilities. • 4 Wildlife use of Sediment Ponds: CC&V agrees with this comment and would incorporate this recommendation as a part of the final reclamation plan for the facilities that are legally and operationally feasible to remain in place. 5 Bear-proof Dumpsters and Recycling Areas: CC&V agrees with this comment and has taken necessary steps to minimize wildlife conflicts at these areas. 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 (33-36thedition) 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 by an application of one pore volume of hydrogen peroxide treated water. The rinsing is followed by a period of water sampling until it meets less than 0.2, mg/l wad Cyanide. CC&V states based on CC&V'S experience and reviewing other facilities, it is believed detoxification can be properly achieved using two pore volumes of water and that the one pore volume of hydrogen peroxide treated water will be unnecessary. Until such time CC&V, provides actual • data from similarly designed leach pads with Ore body and leaching procedures and concentrators, DRMS, will continue to insist on the current approved detoxification plan and will bond accordingly. The Division appreciates CC&V'S willingness not to question the triple rinse cost at this time. 46