2012-08-21_REVISION - M1980244 (32)

Home Browse Search

APPLICATION 1. Page 5, On Site Processing — based on narrative in Exhibit U, Section 6.1, the Division believes the "second product produced by flotation processes and in -tank leaching processes" is a vat leach operation. As such, the "Vat Leach" box on page 5 should be checked. Please submit a corrected version of the Application page 5. RESPONSE: A revised page 5 of the application is included in Appendix A to reflect a checked "Vat Leach" box. 6.4 SPECIFIC EXHIBIT REQUIREMENTS —112 OPERATIONS 2. General Comment, Mgp Scale — the Division notes that Exhibits C -1, C -2, C -3, C -4, C -4a, C -4b, C -5, C -6, C -7 and F -1 are drawn at a scale smaller than 1 inch = 660 feet as stated in Rule 6.2.1(2)(e). However, the Division also notes that the scale of the aforementioned Exhibits is appropriate for what is shown, as is also stated in Rule 6.2.1(2)(e). The Division will not require the Applicant to resubmit these Exhibits in order to change the scale to be larger than 1 inch = 660 feet. No action required by the Applicant. RESPONSE. No response required to this comment. 6.4.1 EXHIBIT A — Legal Description 3. Legal Description of Permit Boundary, Section 19 — the legal description in Exhibit A for Section 19, Township 15 South, Range 69 West is inconsistent with the MLE2 permit boundary drawn on Drawing C -1 and the intent to construct the Squaw Gulch Valley Leach Facility (SGVLF). Based on Drawing C -1, it appears all of Section 19 SW '/4 is within the permit boundary, not just portions as indicated. Please provide corrections or clarification as to what portions of the SW '/4 are not in the permit boundary and how these portions will not be affected by the SGVLF. RESPONSE. A revised page A -3 of Exhibit A is included as Attachment 2 to reflect all of SW Y4 for Section 19, Township 15 South, Range 69 West within the permit boundary. 4. Legal Description of Permit Boundary, Section 30 — the legal description in Exhibit A for Section 30, Township 15 South, Range 69 West is inconsistent with the MLE2 permit boundary drawn on Drawing C- 1. Based on Drawing C -1, it appears not all of Section 30 SE '/4 is within the permit boundary. Please provide corrections or clarification as to what portions of the SE' /4 are not in the permit boundary. RESPONSE: A revised page A -4 of Exhibit A is included as Attachment 2 to reflect only a portions of SE ofSE'/ for Section 30, Township 15 South, Range 69 West within the permit boundary. 6.4.3 EXHIBIT C — Pre - mining & Mining Plan Maps 5. Exhibit C -1— Please respond to the following comments: a. The 200 -foot permit boundary offset line is not labeled or listed in the legend. Please label and/or add the offset boundary to the legend. RESPONSE. A revised Exhibit C -1 is included as Attachment 3 with the 200 foot permit boundary offset line labeled. b. There are several properties excluded from the permit boundary in the SE '/4 of Section 24 and the NE '/4 of Section 25. There is no 200 -foot offset line in this area which might exclude some smaller properties. Is the 200 -foot offset boundary omitted on purpose in these areas? If so, it may help in addressing some discrepancies between Drawing C -1 and Exhibit O (please see Comment 5d below). RESPONSE. A revised Exhibit C -1 and Exhibit O are included as Attachment 3 to address some discrepancies between Drawing C -I and Exhibit O.