Cerro Corona Relavera

Prepared forr:
Gold Fields Lim

mited La Ciima S.A. (GF
FLCSA)
A
Avenida
Via Principal
P
Nm
mero 155 Intt. 1401
San Isidro,
I
Lima 27 Per
T (511) 7066-0400
Tel:
CERRO
O CORO
ONA MIN
NE
ST
TAGE 4 TMF
T
CON
NSTRUC
CTION
DES
SIGN RE
EPORT
T
DRAFT
March 20110
Prepared by:
by
MWH
1801 Caalifornia Streeet, Suite 29000
Den
nver, Colorad
do 80202
(303) 291-22222
Gold Fields La Cima Cerro Corona Mine - Stage 4 TMF Raise 3740 m Page i
March 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section No.
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
Page No.
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1
MWH SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................. 4
EXCLUDED WORK ..................................................................................................................... 5
LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 6
DESIGN STEWARDSHIP, OBJECTIVES, CRITERIA, AND BASIS ................... 7

DESIGN STEWARDSHIP ............................................................................................................ 7
DESIGN OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 8
DESIGN CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................... 9
DESIGN BASIS........................................................................................................................... 11
GENERAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................. 12

PROJECT LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY .......................................................................... 12
SITE LAYOUT ............................................................................................................................ 12
WATER RECOVERY AND TAILING PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT .......................... 13
CLIMATE .................................................................................................................................... 13
SITE HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................................... 14
GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 14
SEISMICITY ............................................................................................................................... 15
HYDROGEOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 15
GEOCHEMISTRY ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.0
DESCRIPTION OF THE STAGE 4 TMF RAISE ................................................... 18
5.0
PROPOSED FUTURE TMF RAISES ....................................................................... 20
5.1
5.2
5.3
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.0
PROPOSED TMF CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE................................................................... 20

DESCRIPTION OF FUTURE TMF RAISES ............................................................................. 21
DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ULTIMATE DAM DESIGN ............................. 22
UPDATED MATERIAL PROPERTIES .................................................................. 24

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 24
TAILING EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... 24
EVALUATION OF ROCKFILL STRENGTH ........................................................................... 26
ZONE 1 AND 5 HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES........................................................................... 27
ENGINEERING ANALYSES .................................................................................... 28
7.1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 28
7.2
SEEPAGE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 28
7.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 28
7.2.2 Geometry and Evaluated Cases ............................................................................................... 28
7.2.3 Material Properties ................................................................................................................. 29
7.2.4 Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................................... 30
7.2.5 Seepage Analysis Results ......................................................................................................... 30
7.2.6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 31
7.3
STABILITY ANALYSES ........................................................................................................... 32
7.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 32
7.3.2 General Stability Analysis ....................................................................................................... 33
7.3.3 Additional Stability Analyses ................................................................................................... 38
7.4
PRELIMINARY SEISMIC DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS ...................................................... 41
7.5
UPSTREAM FACE REINFORCEMENT ................................................................................... 42
7.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 42
7.5.2 Gabions.................................................................................................................................... 43
7.5.3 Geosynthetic Reinforcement .................................................................................................... 44
MWH * 1801 California Street, Suite 2900 * Denver, Colorado 80202 * (303) 291-2222
March 2010
Gold Fields La Cima Cerro Corona Mine - Stage 4 TMF Raise 3740 m Page ii
8.0
REVIEW OF INDUSTRY PRACTICE .................................................................... 46
9.0
CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY ESTIMATES ........................................................ 48
9.1
9.2
9.3
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
11.0
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 48
ESTIMATED STAGE 4 TMF RAISE CONSTRUCTION QUANTITIES ................................ 48
ESTIMATED FUTURE TMF RAISE CONSTRUCTION QUANTITIES................................. 50
CONCEPTUAL TAILING DEPOSITION PLANS AND ESTIMATED TMF

STORAGE CAPACITIES .......................................................................................... 51
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 51
TAILING DEPOSITION PLANS ............................................................................................... 52
LARGE STRAIN CONSOLIDATION MODELING ................................................................. 53
ESTIMATED TMF CAPACITIES .............................................................................................. 54
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 56
Gold Fields La Cima Cerro Corona Mine - Stage 4 TMF Raise 3740 m Page iii
March 2010
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Description
Stage 4 TMF Design Criteria
Stage 4 TMF Design Basis
Summary of Proposed TMF Construction Schedule
Estimated Strength of Materials in Tailing Profile
Summary of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivities Utilized in the Seepage Analysis
Summary of Estimated Seepage Rates
TMF Stages Evaluated in the General Stability Analysis
Summary of Strength Parameters Utilized in Each Loading Condition
Summary of Earthwork Material Properties Utilized in the General Stability
Analysis
Summary of Geosynthetic Parameters Utilized in the General Stability Analysis
Summary of the Results of the General Stability Analysis
Summary of Estimated Construction Quantities Stage 4 TMF Raise
Summary of Estimated Construction Quantities Future TMF Raises
Summary of Estimated TMF Capacities
Contribution of Design Changes to Capacity Increase
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Description
Site Location
Overall Site Plan Stage 4 TMF
Las Aguilas Dam Section A
Las Gordas Dam Section B
Proposed TMF Construction Schedule (Conceptual Level)
Ultimate TFM Dam Plan (Conceptual Level)
Ultimate Las Aguilas Dam Section C (Conceptual Level)
Ultimate Las Gordas Dam Section D (Conceptual Level)
Ultimate La Hierba Dam Section E (Conceptual Level)
Ultimate Dam Details (Conceptual Level)
Original and Revised Ultimate Dam Plan (Conceptual Level)
Original and Revised Ultimate Dam Sections F and G (Conceptual Level)
Comparison of Rockfill Strength Envelopes
Comparison of Estimated PGA and Downstream Slopes for Selected Dams
Comparison of Height and Downstream Slopes for Selected Dams
Estimated Post-Stage 4 Construction Quantities
Estimated Post-Stage 4 Construction Quantities Zone 2B D/S
Gold Fields La Cima Cerro Corona Mine - Stage 4 TMF Raise 3740 m Page iv
March 2010
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
Description
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Tailing Evaluation
Evaluation of Rockfill Strength
Seepage Analysis
Stability Analyses
Preliminary Seismic Displacement Analysis
Review of Industry Practice Rockfill Dam Downstream Slopes
Tailing Deposition Plans and Estimated TMF Capacities
SICTA Testing and Large Strain Consolidation Modeling
Construction Drawings and Specifications
CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS

(Revision 1 Dated March 1, 2010)
Drawing No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22-23
24-25
26-29
30-32
33-34
35-39
Title
Cover Sheet and Index of Drawings
Overall Site Plan
Stage 4 TMF Dam Plan
Las Aguilas Dam Section A
Las Gordas Dam Section B
Dam Transition Zone Profile C
Dam Transition Zone Plan Views (Sheet 1 of 2)
Dam Transition Zone Plan Views (Sheet 2 of 2)
Dam Transition Zone Section D
Dam Transition Zone Section E
Dam Transition Zone Section F
Dam Transition Zone Section G
Dam Transition Zone Section H
Dam Crest Details
Las Gordas Upstream Face Reinforcement Detail
La Hierba Dam Foundation Excavation
La Hierba Dam Plan
La Hierba Dam Sections J and K
La Hierba Dam Sections L and M
La Hierba Sections N and P
Estimated Construction Quantity Summary
Specifications Section 02222 Excavation and Foundation Prep
Specifications Section 02232 Drain and Filter Material
Specifications Section 02245 Foundation Drilling and Grouting
Specifications Section 0271 Gabions
Specifications Section 02274 Geosynthetic Reinforcement
Specifications Section 02290 Earthwork
March 2010
Gold Fields La Cima Cerro Corona Mine - Stage 4 TMF Raise 3740 m Page v
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CDA
CFRD
CPT
CST
GFLCSA
EFT
FHWA
GSHAP
H:V
HDPE
ICOLD
KP
LVU
MCE
MDE
MHW
OBE
PMF
PMP
PMP
PVC
RST
SENAMHI
TMF
UCB
USACE
USFS
VST
WMC
Canadian Dam Association

Concrete Faced Rockfill Dam
Cone Penetration Test
Cleaner scavenger tailing
Gold Fields La Cima S.A.
Extra Fine Tailing
Federal Highway Administration
Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program
Horizontal to Vertical Unit Slope Ratio
High-density polyethylene
International Commission on Large Dams
Knight Piesold
Low volume underflow
Maximum Credible Earthquake
Maximum Design Earthquake
MWH Americas, Inc.
Operating Basis Earthquake
Probable Maximum Flood
Probable Maximum Precipitation
Probable Maximum Precipitation
Polyvinyl Chloride
Rougher scavenger tailing
Servicio Nacional de Meteorologa e Hidrologa
Tailing Management Facility
Upstream Containment Blanket
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Forest Service
Vane Shear Testing
Water Management Consultants
LIST OF UNITS
ha
km
l/s
m
masl
t/d
Hectares
Kilometer
Liters per second
Meter
Meters above mean sea level
Tonnes per day
Gold Fields La Cima Cerro Corona Mine - Stage 4 TMF Raise 3740 m Page 1
March 2010
1.0
1.1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Gold Fields La Cima S.A. (GFLCSA), a subsidiary of Gold Fields Limited, owns the
Cerro Corona mine, a copper mine with significant gold content. The mine is located in
northern Peru, approximately 760 km NNW of Lima and 80 km by road from the city of
Cajamarca, as shown in Figure 1. The mine is currently in operation with further mine
development underway and has an expected life of 14 years. The mine consists of an open
pit, a 20K tonne per day (tpd) concentrator and related ancillary infrastructure. Tailing
produced by the Cerro Corona processing plant will be stored in the tailing management
facility (TMF), located just north of the plant site in the Quebrada Las Aguilas and
Quebrada Las Gordas valleys.
The process engineering for the project was performed by Hatch out of their Santiago,
Chile office. Design of the earth and rock structures, which includes the TMF, was
initially performed by Knight Piesold (KP), who completed a design report in early 2006
(KP, 2006). While GFLCSA views KPs design for the TMF to be technically sound, they
found it to be challenged with many constructability issues such as the timing for
construction around the wet season, the ability to install a grout curtain at the base of the
starter dams and still provide time for construction of the rockfill, placement and
compaction of a low permeability core for the dams during the wet season, and the
availability of suitable rockfill. Accordingly, in January of 2007, GFLCSA contracted
MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH) to develop construction level designs for a rockfill starter
dam to impound tailing during startup and early operations of the mine.
In November of 2008, subsequent to work performed by MWH and KP, MWH submitted
a design package that included a design report and construction drawings to support
construction of the TMF Starter Dam (MWH, 2008). The design included detailed
designs for the Starter Dam and conceptual level designs for future raises above the
starter dam elevation. Starter dam construction was defined as construction of the TMF to
an elevation of 3720 meters above mean sea level (masl), which would require the
construction of two dams, one in the Quebrada Las Aguilas and one in the Quebrada Las
Gordas. As noted in the report, detailed engineering, construction drawings, and
specifications were not developed for dam raises above the starter dam level.
The construction concept presented in the Starter Dam design report is as follows:
Stage 1 Construct a starter dam to an elevation of 3720 masl in the Quebrada

Las Gordas for storage of the first year of produced tailing materials. This dam
was to be constructed of rockfill with a sloping core.
Stage 2 Construction of Stage 2 was sequenced to immediately follow Stage 1.

Stage 2 would involve constructing a starter dam to an elevation of 3720 masl in
the Quebrada Las Aguilas. The Quebrada Las Gordas and Quebrada Las Aguilas
are separated by the Las Flacas Ridge, a feature with a maximum elevation of
approximately 3720 m. It was estimated that after approximately 2 years of tailing
deposition, the impoundment level would rise above the elevation of the Flacas
Ridge, joining the two impoundments.
March 2010
Stage 3 through Completion (conceptual) After Stage 2, the tailing dam was
to be raised in a series of annual center-line raises, eventually reaching the
ultimate dam elevation of 3800 masl. The raised dam was to consist of rockfill
with a vertical core. A major component of this method of dam raise is the
presence of a well-drained tailing beach with sufficient strength to serve as part of
the foundation for future dam raises.
Construction of the Las Gordas Starter Dam began in April of 2007 and was completed in
August of 2008 with sub-aqueous tailing deposition into the Quebrada Las Gordas
beginning shortly thereafter. During operations to date, the properties of the produced
tailing have varied from those utilized in the Starter Dam design. This variance is largely
attributed to two factors:
Increased alteration of the mined ore, which has resulted in a higher fines content
of the produced tailing than was expected. This has resulted in lower than
expected rates of flocculation and settlement of the deposited material.
Due to the large volume of initial water in the Las Gordas basin and the very large
rate of rise during the initial filing of the Las Gordas basin, a sub-aerial beach at
the face of the dam has not formed and therefore limited segregation of the tailing
has occurred.
As a result, the tailing densities that are currently being achieved are less than those
estimated during the starter dam design. Both visual observations and investigations of
the beach indicate a material with a relatively low strength and solids content. A
discussion regarding the investigation and evaluation of the tailing properties is included
in Section 6.2.
As a result of the variance in tailing properties, the TMF construction plan laid out in the
Starter Dam design (which assumed the presence of sufficiently strong tailing beaches for
construction of centerline raises for post Stage 2 construction) has been revised. MWH
has developed additional design packages for construction of the TMF that include
revisions to the original Starter Dam design and designs for further raises. These include
design drawings and field instructions detailing the raising of the TMF to elevation 3732
masl (MWH, 2009a and 2009b) and the construction of the Las Flacas dam (MWH,
2009c).
The following presents a brief summary of the current construction concept and the
current status of construction for the TMF and the revised stage numbering and sequence:
Stage 1 (Constructed) Construction of the Las Gordas Starter Dam to an

elevation of 3720 masl in the Quebrada Las Gordas as described in the Starter
Dam design (MWH, 2008) was completed in August of 2008. This construction
also included the Las Gordas Low Volume Underflow (LVU) facility in the valley
downstream from the dam. The purpose of the LVU is to collect seepage water
from the tailing impoundment.
Stage 2 (Under Construction) Construction of the Las Aguilas Starter Dam to

an elevation of 3732 m as described in the MWH design (2009a) is currently
underway. To provide a suitable upstream platform for future raises of the Las
Aguilas portion of the TMF dam, a zone is being constructed along the upstream
face of the Las Aguilas Starter Dam. This zone is being constructed using the La
March 2010
Jalca Tailing, a historic tailing pile located near the upstream toe of the Las
Aguilas Starter Dam. Construction of this zone will form a 25 m wide bench at its
maximum elevation of 3732 masl and will include cutting and regrading the
existing La Jalca Tailing. Additionally, Stage 2 includes the Las Aguilas LVU
facility, which is currently under construction in the valley downstream of the
TMF dam. Stage 2 work is currently underway and is based upon the design
drawings developed by MWH (2009a).
Stage 3 (Constructed) Stage 3 construction includes the raising of the Las

Gordas Dam to an elevation of 3732 masl and construction of the Las Flacas Dam.
Construction of the Stage 3 Las Gordas Dam raise was completed in September of
2009. Due to the lack of a suitable tailing beach against the upstream face of the
Las Gordas dam, the dam was raised using the optimized centerline method with a
geosynthetically reinforced upstream face, as presented in the 3732 m raise design
prepared by MWH (2009a) and a field instruction from MWH (2009b). The raise
method is described as an optimized centerline raise as it still relies on the
tailing material for upstream stability but to a lesser extent than the centerline
method.
Stage 3 construction also includes the construction of the Las Flacas dam, which
was completed in January of 2010. The Las Flacas Dam is a rockfill dam with a
geomembrane lined face located on the Las Flacas ridge to the west of the Las
Gordas Dam. The purpose of this dam is to form a temporary impoundment in the
Quebrada Las Gordas to allow for storage of tailing materials while construction
of the Las Aguilas Starter Dam is underway. It is expected that a channel will be
excavated through the Las Flacas Dam after the Las Aguilas Dam is constructed
to allow for tailing deposition into the Quebrada Las Aguilas.
Stage 4 (Proposed) After completion of Stage 2 and 3 TMF construction, both

the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas Dams will have been constructed to an elevation
of 3732 masl. To continue to increase the capacity of the impoundment, the TMF
will be raised to an elevation of 3740 masl. The selection of the Stage 4 crest
elevation is based upon conceptual level TMF construction scheduling performed
by MWH, as discussed in Section 5.1.
The Stage 4 raise will be constructed using the optimized centerline method for
the Las Gordas portion of the TMF dam with an upstream slope of 0.8 horizontal
units to 1 vertical unit (0.8H:1V). As the La Jalca Tailing bench will provide
upstream support, the Las Aguilas portion of the TMF dam will be raised using
the centerline method, with vertical internal zones and an upstream rockfill face
sloping at 1.4H:1V. The upstream face of the Las Gordas (sloped) portion of the
dam will be reinforced with geosynthetic and gabions to achieve surficial stability.
The downstream slope of the rockfill for the TMF will be steepened from the
current design slope of 1.5H:1V to 1.4H:1V. A discussion on industry precedence
to support this slope steepening is included in Section 8.
As a part of the Stage 4 raise, a small saddle dam will be constructed across the La
Hierba valley to the southwest of the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas dams. This
dam, known as the La Hierba dam, lies along the ultimate dam centerline and will
be constructed with vertical internal zones and upstream and downstream rockfill
zones sloping at 1.4H:1V.
March 2010
The design of the Stage 4 TMF is presented in this report and is discussed further
in Section 4.0. Seepage and stability analyses and construction quantity estimates
were performed for the Stage 4 TMF raise. The results of these evaluations are
included in Sections 7 and 9, respectively.
Figure 2 presents an overview of the site with the proposed Stage 4 TMF.
Sections through the Stage 4 Dam in the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas valleys are
presented in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
Future Raises (Conceptual) As the design of the Stage 4 TMF raise and future
raises are interdependent, conceptual level designs were developed for future
TMF raises. The proposed design concept assumes the centerline method will not
be suitable for any remaining raises due to the presence of weak tailing throughout
the life of the mine. This design represents a contingency plan as it is likely that
conditions in the impoundment will improve with time due to the addition of
flocculant and the increasing size of the impoundment.
The post-Stage 4 design concept consists of raising the dam using the optimized
centerline method with an upstream slope of 0.6H:1V and a downstream slope of
1.4H:1V. The upstream slope will be reinforced with geosynthetic and gabions to
achieve global and surficial stability.
A conceptual level schedule was developed to evaluate the required future raising
schedule while maintaining the required freeboard and minimizing the required
wet season construction work. Additionally, seepage and stability analyses and
quantity estimates were performed for the future dam raises. The results of these
evaluations are included in Sections 7 and 9, respectively. The proposed raising
schedule and TMF construction for future raises are described in further detail in
Section 5. Further information regarding the proposed design for future facility
raises is included in Section 5.
Figure 6 presents a plan view of the proposed conceptual level ultimate TMF
dam. Ultimate dam sections through the Las Aguilas, Las Gordas, and La Hierba
valleys are presented in Figures 7, 8 and 9, respectively.
1.2
MWH SCOPE OF WORK
The lack of a consolidated and well drained beach (to provide a suitable foundation for
future raises) has necessitated a review of the previously completed conceptual design to
identify construction methods for subsequent raises of the dam that will allow for storage
of the tailing materials while meeting stability criteria and minimizing any movement of
the downstream toe of the facility. The scope of this project consists of developing a
detailed design for the raise of the Cerro Corona TMF to an elevation of 3740 masl and
developing conceptual level designs for future raises. Specifically, the scope includes the
following components:
Investigation and evaluation of geotechnical properties of the deposited tailing

materials and the use of this information as an input to engineering analyses, as
appropriate.
Development of a conceptual level TMF dam construction schedule to estimate

the optimal crest elevations for future TMF raises.
March 2010
Review and refinement of the dam material properties utilized in previous

analyses based on newly available information.
Completion of engineering analyses and a review of industry practice to support

any proposed revisions to the dam configuration.
Development of a detailed design complete with construction quantity estimates,

construction drawings, and construction specifications for raising the TMF dam to
an elevation of 3740 masl, termed Stage 4 construction.
Compilation of a design report to summarize the Stage 4 TMF raise design and
present the work performed in support of the design.
Development of conceptual level designs to construct the TMF to its ultimate

elevation, assuming that the optimized centerline design will be utilized
throughout the construction of the dam.
Development of conceptual level tailing deposition plans and capacity estimates

for the Stage 4 TMF and future TMF raises to be used in mine planning and
design of pumping and piping systems.
1.3
EXCLUDED WORK
The work performed in this study is limited to the development of a detailed design to
raise the Cerro Corona TMF to an elevation of 3740 masl and the development of
conceptual level designs for future raises. The scope of work does not include the
following:
Detailed Design for Facility Raises Beyond 3740 masl This project does not
include detailed designs for future facility raises (post-Stage 4). However, in order
to provide a feasible future construction concept and as the design of the Stage 4
TMF and future raises are interdependent, future facility construction was
considered on a conceptual level.
Ancillary Construction The construction of complementary items such as

access roads, expanded borrow facilities, and staging areas were not considered
and are not included as a part of this report.
Hydrology and Water Management The design presented in this report is not
thought to deviate significantly from that presented in the starter dam report in
terms of hydrology and water management. However, it is recommended that the
design presented in this report be utilized to update the site wide water balance.
Pumping and Piping Systems As the design presented in this report does not
deviate significantly from that presented in the starter dam report in terms of
pumping and piping, no significant revisions to the pumping and piping designs
presented in that report are deemed necessary. However, the current design
presented may alter the sequencing and placement locations of tailing delivery
lines due to variations from the original conceptual design and differences
between the Stage 4 Las Gordas and Las Aguilas dam raise methodologies. These
potential issues are not specifically addressed in this report and should be
considered by the TMF operators to ensure satisfactory operation of the facility.
However, to aid in the design of pumping and piping systems, conceptual level
tailing deposition plans were developed by MWH, as discussed in Section 10.
March 2010
1.4
Facility Closure As the design presented in this report does not deviate
significantly from that presented in the starter dam report in terms of closure, no
revisions to the closure plan presented in that report were deemed necessary.
LIMITATIONS
This document contains the expression of the professional opinion of MWH as to the
matters set out herein, using its professional judgment and reasonable care. It is to be read
in the context of the agreement and signed amendments (the Agreement) dated
November 28, 2005 between GFLCSA and MWH, and the methodology, procedures and
sampling techniques used, MWHs assumptions, the circumstances and constraints under
which its mandate was performed. This document is meant to be read as a whole, and
sections or parts thereof should thus not be read or relied upon out of context.
Additionally, this report should be read in conjunction with the Starter Dam design report
developed by MWH (2008).
Professional judgments are presented in this report. These are based partly on evaluation
of technical information gathered, partly on our experience with similar projects, and
partly on our understanding of the characteristics of the project. The findings,
interpretations of data, recommendations, professional opinions, and conclusions that are
presented are within the limits prescribed by available information at the time the
analyses and designs were prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional
engineering practice. In the event that there are any changes in the nature, design, or
characteristics of the project, or if additional data are obtained, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in the report will need to be reevaluated by MWH in light of
the proposed changes or additional information obtained. Variations from results
presented in the report should be expected due to uncertainties that are inherent in these
types of analyses. Therefore, decisions that are based on these results should consider
these variations as well as limitations of the analyses to predict future performance with a
high degree of accuracy.
Unless expressly stated otherwise, assumptions, data and information supplied by, or
gathered from other sources (including GFLCSA, other consultants, testing laboratories
and equipment suppliers, etc.) upon which MWHs opinion as set out herein is based has
not been verified by MWH and MWH makes no representation as to its accuracy and
disclaims all liability with respect thereto.
MWH disclaims any liability to any third party in respect of any reliance on this
document by any third party without the prior written consent of MWH. MWHs services
were performed within the limits prescribed by GFLCSA, with the usual thoroughness
and competence of the engineering profession. No other representation, expressed or
implied, is included or intended in our proposals, contracts, or reports.
March 2010
2.0
2.1
DESIGN STEWARDSHIP, OBJECTIVES, CRITERIA,

AND BASIS
DESIGN STEWARDSHIP
The Cerro Corona TMF is a complex facility consisting of many components which rely
on strict adherence to stringent standards for construction quality control, construction
quality assurance, compliance with safe operating parameters, performance monitoring
and management accountability. The design of this facility assumes that minimum levels
of stewardship will be maintained during the construction, operation, closure and post
closure phases of the project. Compliance with these minimum standards is an integral
component of the design. Failure to comply with these minimum standards shall be
considered to be a material deviation from the design intent and will release MWH from
any responsibility related to the ongoing operation or performance of the facility. The
minimum standards shall include the following:
Compliance with the following standards for construction, operation and care of
tailing impoundments:
o Mining Association of Canada, A Guide to the Management of Tailings
Facilities, September 1998
o Australian National Committee on Large Dams, Guidelines on Tailings Dam
Design, Construction, and Operation, October 1999
o Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development, Stewardship of Tailings
Facilities, April 2002
o ICOLD, Increasing Tailings Dam Safety, Critical Aspects of Management,
Design, Operation and Closure
An Engineer of Record who is familiar with the design intent, all design drawings
and specifications and relevant standards shall be employed to ensure that all
construction, operation and closure activities, as well as any design modifications
or interpretations are consistent with the original design intent and any applicable
standards and/or regulations.
The owner will prepare an operating strategy, operating manual, operating

procedures, safe work procedures and emergency response plan which must, in
the opinion of the Engineer of Record, comply with the original design intent.
Failure to build and/or operate the facility in accordance with these documents
may be considered a significant departure from the design.
The owner will establish and maintain an independent review board of

internationally recognized experts to review all design, construction, operation
and closure activities, and to make recommendations to the owner regarding
appropriate stewardship of the facility. The owner is not bound to implement the
recommendations of the independent review board, but unless the engineer of
record concurs with the owners decision, failure to do so may be considered to be
a significant departure from the design.
The owner will establish and maintain a suitable organizational structure and will
employ qualified and experienced personnel, consultants and contractors to build
and operate this facility. Failure to meet this criterion, in the opinion of the
March 2010
independent review board or the engineer of record, may be considered a

significant departure from the design.
These minimum standards form an integral part of this design.
2.2
DESIGN OBJECTIVES
The main objective of the TMF design presented in this report to develop constructionlevel designs and construction documents for raising the Cerro Corona TMF to an
elevation of 3740 masl in an environmentally responsible manner in accordance with
Peruvian and International practices.
Additional objectives include:
Satisfy relevant local and international design criteria associated with TMF
design, construction, and operation
Design and construct the TMF in accordance with internationally recognized

stability criteria
Design the TMF so that it does not impact the operation of the Las Gordas or Las
Aguilas LVU facilities.
Design a facility that can be constructed with material from onsite borrow sources
Develop conceptual level designs to construct the TMF to its ultimate elevation
while considering the potential for weak tailing throughout the life of the facility,
allowing for freeboard requirements, and minimizing wet season construction.
The design criteria and basis for the Stage 4 TMF raise are generally based upon those
developed for design work previously performed by MWH. The following sections
summarize the design criteria and basis adopted for the Stage 4 TMF raise. The following
documents were used in the development of the design basis and criteria and are
referenced as used in the design criteria and basis summary tables:
1. Knight Piesold, 2006. Mine Waste and Associated Water Management Facilities
Report on Design, Final report prepared for Gold Fields La Cima S.A. January
18, 2006.
2. MWH, Review of Existing Data and Engineering Judgment
3. Water Management Consultants (WMC), 2005. 24-hr PMF Volume at the Cerro
Corona Tailings Facility, Memorandum from Enrique Buschiazzo of WMC to
Frits Reidel. December 2, 2005.
4. Hatch, 2006. Civil Structural Design Criteria, Document no. H318608-000-C22-001. July 18, 2006.
5. Hidroenerga, 2006. Estudio de Peligro Ssmico, Cerro Corona Cajamarca,
Final Report Prepared for MWH Peru S.A. October, 2006.
March 2010
6. MWH, 2005. Cerro Corona Frost Depth Analysis, January 10, 2005.
7. Independent Geotechnical and Tailing Review Board (IGTRB), Draft Third
Report.
8. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Engineering and Design Slope
Stability, Engineering Manual 1110-2-1902. October 31, 2003.
9. Canadian Dam Association (CDA), 2007. Dam Safety Guidelines. 2007.
10. MWH, Results of Cerro Corona pH Monitoring Program (as of January 5th, 2010).
11. MWH, 2010. Cerro Corona Low Volume Underflow Facility Las Aguilas
Valley, Design Drawings, Revision 1. February, 2010.
12. MWH, 2008. Cerro Corona LVU Dam Design, Design Drawings, Revision 3.
September, 2008.
2.3
DESIGN CRITERIA
Following previous work performed by MWH, the Stage 4 TMF raise was designed
following the following national standards and other internationally accepted guidelines.
The following Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) standards and guidelines were used
to develop this design basis document:
Ministerial Resolution No. 0.5-95-EM-DGAA Governing the Design and

Reporting of Tailing Facilities (1995).
Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Studies for Mineral Tailing (1995).
Mine Closure Regulations (2003).
MWH also utilized the following international standards to develop the Stage 4 TMF
design:
Canadian Dam Safety Guidelines
Nevada Division of Water Resources Regulating and Permitting Guidelines

Pertaining to the Safety of Dams
Mining Association of Canada Tailing Management Guidelines
International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) Guidelines
March 2010
The design criteria that have been adopted for the Stage 4 TMF design are presented in
Table 1.
Table 1 Stage 4 TMF Design Criteria
ITEM
CRITERIA
DATA
(1)
SOURCE
General
Very High Canadian Dam Association
Facility Hazard Category
High Nevada Division of Water Resources
Seismicity
Arequipa, Peru 197, Bokajan, Burma, 1988, and Panchimilco,
El Salvador.
1/475 yr event
Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE)

M = 8.0
PMP, 24 hr event
Flood volume resulting from occurrence of the 24-hr PMP event
Design Earthquake
Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)
Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE)
Hydrology
Facility Design Storm
PMF
Facility Configuration and Construction

Vertical distance from maximum estimated level of reclaim
pond and the PMF to the dam crest
Store tailing, maximum estimated reclaim pond volume, and

PMF
USACE Stability Recommendations
CDA Dam Safety Guidelines
On-site Borrow
Will not impact the performance of the Las Gordas Low Volume
Underflow (LVU) facility or the Las Aguilas LVU facility
(currently under construction)
Freeboard
TMF Capacity
Stability Requirements
Static Dam Stability
Post-Cyclic Dam Stability
Dam Construction Material Source
Ultimate TMF Dam Maximum
Downstream Toe Location
1.
Data source numbers refer to the list of reference documents listed in Section 2.2.
March 2010
2.4
DESIGN BASIS
The design basis that has been adopted for the Stage 4 Cerro Corona TMF design is
presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Stage 4 TMF Design Basis
BASIS
DATA
(1)
SOURCE
900 km NNW of Lima, Peru
ITEM
General Site Characteristics
Location
Elevation
Seasons
3500 to 4000 masl
Wet Season - October through March
Dry Season - April through September
Minimum Design Temperature
-1.0 C
Maximum Design Temperature
20.0 C
Frost Depth
0.0 m
Minimum Design Humidity
32%
Maximum Design Humidity
100%
Minimum Annual Design Precipitation
398 mm
Maximum Annual Design Precipitation
3,104 mm
Maximum Design Wind Speed
40 km/hr
Prevailing Wind Direction
East/East-Northeast
10.5 - 12
10
TMF pH Range
Seismic Conditions
Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)
0.24g (1/500 yr)
5 and 7
0.50g
5 and 7
1.3
1.5
Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE)

Minimum Stability Requirements
Minimum Static Factor of Safety (End of Construction)
Minimum Static Factor of Safety (Long-Term)
Minimum Pseudo-Static Factor of Safety
None Based on Deformations
Minimum Post Cyclic Factor of Safety
1.2
501,291 m (Las Aguilas Valley)
Hydrologic Conditions
PMF
485,709 m (Las Gordas Valley)

Freeboard
Minimum Downstream Dam Slope
2m
1.4H:1V
Minimum Dam Crest Width
10 m
Minimum Dam Zone Width (Per Constructability)
3m
Maximum Exposed Life of Stage 4 Upstream Dam Face
2 years
Minimum Required Capacity of the Las Aguilas LVU Facility
11,300 m
Minimum Required Capacity of the Las Gordas LVU Facility
3,000 m
1.
2
3
Data source numbers refer to the list of reference documents listed in Section 2.2.
11
12
March 2010
3.0
GENERAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION
The following subsections present a brief summary of the project setting and are based
upon more detailed information presented in the TMF Starter Dam design report
developed by MWH (2008), unless noted otherwise.
3.1
PROJECT LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY
The Cerro Corona mine is located in northern Peru, approximately 760 km NNW of Lima
and 80 km by road from the city of Cajamarca. The mine site is in the Department of
Cajamarca, approximately 1.5 km west-northwest of the village of Hualgayoc, as shown
in Figure 1. The project site is typical of mine sites in the Peruvian Andes with elevations
ranging from 3,500 to 4,000 masl. The site topography ranges from shallow valley floors
sloping at 5 degrees or less to steep rock bluffs sloping at angles up to 70 degrees.
Overall, the local topography slopes at an average of 10 to 35 degrees.
3.2
SITE LAYOUT
The Cerro Corona site is relatively compact, covering an area of approximately 200
hectares (ha). The site contains two major valleys, the Quebrada Las Gordas and
Quebrada Las Aguilas, which are separated by a north-south trending ridge, known as the
Las Flacas Ridge. The Las Flacas Dam was constructed along the Las Flacas ridge to
separate the Las Gordas and Las Aguilas impoundments. A rhyolite quarry is in operation
along the northern edge of the Las Gordas impoundment and the Corona open-pit mine is
located in the eastern portion of the site.
The westernmost valley, the Quebrada Las Aguilas, contains a historic tailing deposit
from previous mining activities at the site, known as the La Jalca Tailing. The Quebrada
Las Aguilas generally flows south to north with drainage exiting into the Tingo River.
The Las Aguilas Starter Dam is currently under construction to an elevation of 3732 masl,
with La Jalca tailing being placed and compacted against the upstream face of the dam.
Construction of this dam will serve to form the Las Aguilas portion of the Cerro Corona
TMF.
To the east of the Quebrada Las Aguilas is the Quebrada Las Gordas. This valley flows
southeast to northwest, with drainage exiting into the Tingo River. The Las Gordas
Starter Dam has been constructed and subsequently raised to an elevation of 3732 masl in
the downstream portion of this valley, near the Tingo River. Tailing is currently being
deposited into this valley, with the Gordas Dam serving to impound the material. The
rhyolite quarry and the concentrate plant are located in the southeastern portions of this
valley, upstream of the Gordas portion of the TMF. The upstream containment blanket
(UCB) is being constructed along the mine overburden facilities along the eastern and
southern portions of the Las Gordas impoundment. The UCB is an engineering
compacted clay barrier that is intended to reduce seepage and piping of tailing into the
karstic limestone.
The La Hierba valley is a smaller valley located west of the Las Aguilas Mountain. A
small saddle dam, termed the La Hierba dam, will be constructed across the saddle at the
top of the valley as a part of Stage 4 construction.
March 2010
Figure 2 presents an overview of the site, including the major site components along with
the proposed Stage 4 TMF.
3.3
WATER RECOVERY AND TAILING PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORT
The TMF stores both rougher scavenger tailing (RST) and cleaner scavenger tailing
(CST). The RST is produced from the rougher flotation cells after a scavenging stage and
makes up the majority of the tailing produced in the project (approximately 85% to 95%
of the total tailing stream). The CST is produced from the cleaner flotation cells after a
scavenging stage and has a finer gradation as it is passed through a regrind stage. The
RST has a lower sulfide content as most of the sulfide mineralization is floated off in the
rougher circuit. At deposition into the TMF, the pH of the tailing streams is elevated due
to the addition of lime to the process.
The potential for acid generation from the CST is high while the potential for acid
generation from the RST is considered negligible. Currently, the CST is being co-mingled
with the RST material and is being deposited sub-aerially. It is understood that the comingling of the RST and CST tailing will only be allowed during the early years of
operations. Later in the mine life, the tailing streams will be separated and the CTS tailing
will be deposited sub-aqueously to prevent ARD generation.
Currently, the combined RST and CST tailing streams are being thickened to a solids
content of approximately 55% by weight prior to discharge into the TMF. The RST
generated at the concentrator plant is delivered to the tailing thickener area by means of a
gravity line. After thickening, the material is conveyed to the RST feeder box where it is
combined with the CST and then transported via a high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
gravity pipeline to its final discharge at the TMF. The RST delivery system includes a
series of drop pipes that enable the dissipation of excess energy.
Water is removed from the surface water pond and reclaimed to the mine process circuit
by floating decant pumps located in the TMF. As noted previously, slow rates of
flocculation and settlement of the tailing materials have reduced the pumping rates from
the facility.
LVU collection facilities are located downstream of both the Las Gordas and Las Aguilas
dams (the Las Aguilas LVU facility is currently under construction). The purpose of these
facilities is to collect seepage water from the tailing impoundments. Water collected in
the Las Aguilas LVU facility will be pumped to the Las Gordas LVU facility. From this
point, water will be pumped to the LVU pump station storage box prior to pumping back
to the TMF.
3.4
CLIMATE
The climate at the site is defined by two distinct seasons, a dry and a wet season. For
construction purposes, these seasons have been divided into a dry season from April
through September and a wet season from October through March. The Cerro Corona
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Knight Piesold 2005) has evaluated data from
a number of meteorological stations operated by the Servicio Nacional de Meteorologa y
Hidrologa (SENAMHI), together with data from a weather station located within the
GFLCSA property at the Carolina Site.
March 2010
Based on an adjustment for elevation of the data from the Hualgayoc meteorological
station, average annual precipitation is reported as 1,398 mm with the wet and dry year
totals being 2,423 and 907 mm, respectively. An average annual catchment evaporation
of 507 mm has been calculated based on a 65% average annual pan evaporation estimate.
A new meteorological station has been installed at the site by GFLCSA and has been
taking site-specific data readings for over 2 years. This station will operate over the full
life of the mine and its data will be used to refine current data sets used for calculating
future water balances for the operation as well as for planning and designing the staged
expansions of the TMF, general project improvements and closure planning.
3.5
SITE HYDROLOGY
In the Cerro Corona project area, six sub-catchments can be defined: Quebrada Las
Aguilas, Chorro Blanco, Las Gordas, Las Flacas, Mesa de Plata, and Corona. The
Hualgayoc River, located south of the site, originates at an elevation of over 3,700 masl at
Cerro Coyomolache. The river flows from the southwest to the northeast. Both the
Quebrada Mesa de Plata and the Quebrada Corona sub-catchments flow to this river. The
Cerro Corona pit is located on the watershed between the Quebrada Mesa de Plata subcatchment and the Quebrada Corona sub-catchment.
The Quebrada Las Gordas, Las Aguilas, and Las Flacas drain to the Tingo River. The
Tingo River is the predominant river in this area. It originates at an elevation of 3,900
masl on the flanks of the Cerros de Tantahuatay. The river, which flows from east to
west, has a catchment area of 9 square kilometers (km2) above its confluence with the
Quebrada Las Aguilas. The river has an average annual flow of 241 liters per second (l/s)
downstream of its intersection with the Quebradas Las Aguilas and Las Gordas. The TMF
is located in the Las Gordas and Animas sub-catchments. The Hualgoyoc River originates
above 3,700 masl at Cerro Coyomolache and flows from the southwest to the northeast.
Site hydrology studies were completed by both KP and Water Management Consultants
(WMC). As WMC completed the most recent assessments, their studies were utilized.
WMC completed two hydrology studies. The first study (WMC, 2005) calculated the
Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) runoff volume upstream of the TMF dam. The second
study (WMC, 2006) evaluated the precipitation depth for the 100 yr, 1000 yr, and PMF
events. These studies can be found as appendices to the starter dam design report
developed by MHW (2008).
3.6
GEOLOGY
The rock structure in the Cerro Corona area includes Cretaceousage sandstones, Servicio
Nacional de Meteorologia y Hidrologia
quartzites, limestone and calcareous
mudstones of the Goyllarisquizga Group. The limestones are part of the Paritambo and
Yumagual formations. The regional dip of the limestone rock structure is between 15 and
35 degrees towards the southwest. The Yumagual formation exhibits karstic features such
as solutioned joints, shafts, caverns, and singles. Groundwater International (GWI), since
acquired by MWH, was contracted to investigate the karstic features at the site.
During the Tertiary period, (Eocene-Miocene) these sedimentary rocks were intruded by a
series of igneous bodies including the Cerro Corona intrusion. The Cerro Corona
March 2010
intrusive forms a near vertical tube, which is exposed over an area approximately 800 m
wide and 1000 m long, elongated in a north-south direction. The main body of the
intrusive is a porphyry diorite, with two smaller bodies (a diorite and a quartz diorite)
intruded in the southern part of the body. The two small bodies are located along a
northeast-southwest axis coincident with the main fault trend in the area, and suggesting
that the intrusions are partially fault controlled. The centre of the intrusion is extensively
silicified with numerous quartz veins, while outside this central core the intrusion is
weathered, as indicated by the development of clay minerals and iron oxides.
Another intrusive body outcrops on both sides of the Tingo River, approximately 6 km
west northwest of Cerro Corona. This intrusive is associated with the rhyolitic flows
which outcrop on the flanks of Cerro Las Gordas and Cerro Aguilas. The limestone host
rock shows little deformation related to the intrusion of the Cerro Corona body, with
some cleavage development or faulting along the contacts. Bedding within the limestones
is disturbed within a 10m zone around the intrusive contact. Skarn is developed within a
zone extending approximately 30 m from the intrusive contact. Rafts of limestone host
rock, up to 70 m in thickness are present within the intrusive body.
The surface deposits in the area include colluvial, morranic and fluvioglacial deposits.
Numerous landslips are seen associated with saturated superficial deposits, while a larger
scale landslide, affecting both superficial deposits and underlying bedrock is observed in
the Tingo River valley, below the confluence with the Las Gordas valley. The saturated
superficial deposits range from 0.5-4 m in thickness, while the colluvial and scree
deposits present in the Las Gordas and Aguilas valleys have thicknesses in the range of 520 m. These superficial deposits can form a shallow aquifer, which can transmit water to
the underlying basement rocks or feed local shallow spring flows.
3.7
SEISMICITY
The northern part of Peru in the Cerro Corona project area is characterized by significant
seismicity. The regional geologic structure is dominated by northeast-southwest trending
faults and related folds. In the Cajamarca area these are intersected by a series of eastwest trending structures.
A number of historic site seismic hazard documents were reviewed as a part of the Starter
Dam design. Based on recommendations from the Independent Geotechnical and Tailing
Review Board (IGTRB), MWH contracted URS to develop a new hazard study for the
project. URS was selected by MWH due to their familiarity with Peruvian seismicity as
they had recently completed a similar study for the Cerro Verde mine near Arequipa,
Peru. This report (URS, 2007) has since been used to obtain seismic input parameters for
a seismic deformation analysis, which was performed as a part of this report. A
description of this analysis and a summary of the preliminary results of this analysis are
presented in Section 7.4 of this report.
3.8
HYDROGEOLOGY
Due to the karstic nature of the site, a number of hydrogeologic studies have been
performed. WMC was contracted by GFLCSA to perform hydrological and
hydrogeological studies at the site. A summary of the key hydrogeologic findings from
March 2010
the WMC study, as presented in the Starter Dam design report (MWH, 2008) is as
follows:
The Cerro Corona intrusive body has a variable, but moderate permeability with
variations likely related to fracture development and variations in alteration
Zones of increased fracturing generally correlate with fault zones and with the
limestone intrusive contact areas.
The Cerro Corona intrusive body intruded into a sequence of carbonate rocks.
Groundwater flow in the carbonates is enhanced along faults, fractures, and local
karst features.
Groundwater elevation contours indicate that Cerro Corona represents a

groundwater high. Groundwater flow away from Cerro Corona follows
topography with flow occurring towards the north and east into the Mesa de Plata
basin and to the south-southeast into the Hualgayoc basin.
A hydrogeologic flow model was developed by WMC for GFLCSA (WMC, 2008). The
model was developed using the USGS three-dimensional groundwater flow code
MODFLOW. The results of hydrogeologic modeling are as follows:
The development of the TMF would affect the surface drainage and recharge of
the Las Gordas and Aguilas sub-catchments, potentially reducing the natural
baseflow of the Tingo River by 33.6 l/s or 19.5%
Three pit dewatering scenarios were evaluated. Modeling indicates that the
dewatering operations in the open pit for the base case scenario (pit dewatering of
30 L/s for 15 years) may reduce the baseflow at the confluence of the Hualgayoc
River with the Quebrada Mesa de Plata between 2% and 4% (approximately 3
L/s).
The cone of depression resulting from the base case pit dewatering may extend to
the topographic level of 3,620 masl, which may result in a reduction in certain
observed spring flows in the Quebrada Corona region.
However, the hydrogeologic model developed by WMC represents a preliminary model

and does not account for the karst formations present at the site. Accordingly,
GWI was contracted by GFLCSA to conduct a detailed karst hydrogeological assessment
of the Gordas Valley tailing and waste rock facilities. This study included field mapping,
drilling and installation of piezometers, hydraulic testing, speleological and dye tracer
studies, spring and water level monitoring, and three dimensional numerical modeling.
The following information was obtained from the karst hydrogeology study prepared by
GWI (2009). A summary of the key hydrogeologic findings from this study are as
follows:
The risk of seepage losses from the mine waste facilities within the Gordas Valley
via karstic limestone units is high if the pond comes in contact with the limestone
above the 3750 masl level.
The construction of the UCB along the mine overburden facilities reduces but will
not eliminate seepage.
March 2010
Pumping from the drain behind the UCB will result in significant reductions of the
risk of off-site seepage.
With the UCB and the drain installed and functioning correctly, there will be a
low risk of offsite seepage associated with raising the tailing level in the
impoundment to an elevation of 3760 masl.
It may be possible to raise the tailing level above elevation 3760 masl if
monitoring of the UCB and the Hualgayoc seep collection systems indicate that
they are working correctly.
The risks of off-site water quality impacts are much higher from the mine waste
dumps as they are acid-generating and are within a karstic limestone recharge
area. It is understood that water from any impacted springs will be collected and
treated by GFLCSA.
3.9
GEOCHEMISTRY
Various geochemical characterization studies have been performed at the site. A brief
summary of the results of the geochemical characterization studies is presented below:
Material from the rhyolite quarry in the Gordas valley is not expected to generate
acidic drainage or leach elevated concentrations of metals.
A portion of the alluvial/colluvial material from the Aguilas valley contains

minimal net neutralization potential.
The La Jalca tailing materials are not suitable for construction considering their
geochemical properties. However, their use in Stage 3 construction against the
upstream face of the Las Aguilas Dam is considered acceptable as the placement
location is upstream of the Zone 1 core material.
The TMF will store two types of tailing, CST and RST. The CST contains a
greater concentration of sulfide-sulfur and a smaller net neutralizing potential than
the RST fraction of the tailing. Humidity cell testing indicates that the CST
fraction quickly turns acidic and produces leachate with increasing concentrations
of metals and decreasing pH values during the test period. The RST portion,
however, had stable concentrations of metals and circumneutral pH after 25
weeks. Accordingly, it was recommended that the CST be deposited subaqueously in the later stages of the mine life to mitigate acid generation while the
RST can be deposited in a subaerial manner.
March 2010
4.0
DESCRIPTION OF THE STAGE 4 TMF RAISE
At the onset of Stage 4 construction, it is expected that the construction of stages 1

through 3 of the TMF will be completed. Stage 4 construction will consist of raising both
the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas Dams to an elevation of 3740 masl and constructing a
relatively small saddle dam across the La Hierba valley. At this elevation, both the Las
Gordas and Las Aguilas dams will be at a sufficient elevation to form a single connected
dam spanning both the Quebrada Las Aguilas and the Quebrada Las Gordas. A plan view
of the site, including the Stage 4 TMF, is presented in Figure 2.
Stage 4 TMF construction will be performed utilizing two raise methods, the optimized
centerline raise for the Las Gordas portion of the Stage 4 TMF raise and a vertical
centerline raise for the La Hierba Dam and the Las Aguilas portion of the Stage 4 TMF
raise. The Las Aguilas and La Hierba portions of the raise will be constructed with a
sloping rockfill zone (placed at a slope of 1.4H:1V) placed along the upstream face of the
raise to support the vertically placed adjacent material zones. For the Las Aguilas portion
of the raise, this upstream rockfill zone will be supported by the La Jalca tailing bench
while for the La Hierba dam, this upstream rockfill zone will be supported by the existing
ground.
The Las Gordas portion of the raise is described as an optimized centerline raise as it
still relies on the tailing material for upstream stability but to a lesser extent than the
centerline method. The upstream face and the internal material zones of the Las Gordas
portion of the Stage 4 TMF raise will be constructed at a slope of 0.8H:1V. Due to the
steepness of the upstream slope of the optimized centerline portion of the raise, gabion
facing with geosynthetic tails has been specified to provide lateral support for placement
and compaction of rockfill at the upstream face and to mitigate raveling during the service
life of the Stage 4 TMF. Further information regarding the gabion facing is presented in
Section 7.5.2 of this report and in the Construction Drawings included as Appendix I.
Near the middle of the main Stage 4 TMF dam (the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas portions
of the dam), the two raise methods intersect. The intersection of the two raise types will
be performed by sloping the optimized centerline raise method from its Stage 4 elevation
of 3740 masl down to the previous TMF dam elevation of 3732 masl. In this transition
zone, a vertical centerline raise method will be used above the sloped optimized
centerline method to bring the dam to its full Stage 4 elevation. Additional information
regarding the transition zone can be found in the construction drawings, located in
Appendix I.
To comply with the project stability criteria, the horizontal widths of the upstream Zone
2B and Zone 5 materials for the Stage 4 TMF dam have been altered from the values
presented in the Starter Dam report (MWH, 2008), which were used during construction
of the TMF to date. This alteration consists of increasing the horizontal width of the Zone
2B material from the original design value of 3 m to 6 m and an accompanying decrease
in the Zone 5 width from 9 m to 6 m.
To counteract the reduction in the Zone 5 width, the specification for the Zone 5 material
placed above elevation 3732 masl (for Stage 4 construction and beyond) has been revised
to require the placement of Zone 5 material with a reduced saturated hydraulic
conductivity (reduced from the Stage 3 specified value of 1 10-5 cm/s to 1 10-6 cm/s).
March 2010
Further information regarding the selection of the Zone 5 hydraulic parameters can be
found in Section 6.4. Seepage analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of the Zone
5 width and parameter revision on the estimated hydraulic gradients and seepage rates
through the dam. Further information regarding the seepage and stability analyses
performed in support of the Stage 4 design is included in Section 7.
For the entire TMF dam, the Stage 4 downstream rockfill slope will be steepened from
the design value of 1.5H:1V, as presented in the Starter Dam design (MWH, 2008) to a
slope of 1.4H:1V. This steepening is based on newly available information that was used
to revise the rockfill strength envelope and necessitated by the need to minimize any
downstream movement of the downstream embankment toe. Section 8 discusses the
industry precedent for this revision while Section 7 discusses the analyses performed to
evaluate the suitability of this revised slope.
Sections of the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas portions of the Stage 4 TMF dam raise are
presented in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Additional information regarding the Stage 4
TMF dam design is included in the Construction Drawings.
March 2010
5.0
PROPOSED FUTURE TMF RAISES
To evaluate the suitability of the Stage 4 TMF raise design and to provide a contingency
framework for future TMF construction, a conceptual level design was developed for
future TMF dam raises above the Stage 4 TMF crest elevation of 3740 masl. As a part of
this design, a conceptual level construction schedule and quantity estimates were
developed and seepage and stability analyses were performed. The proposed future TMF
raise design (for post-Stage 4 raises) represents a contingency plan, assuming that weak
tailing will be impounded within the TMF throughout the life of the facility. Accordingly,
the proposed design for future raises employs the optimized centerline method. The
following sections discuss the proposed TMF staging schedule and the proposed
configuration for future TMF raises.
5.1
PROPOSED TMF CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
A conceptual level TMF construction schedule was developed by MWH to estimate the
optimal crest elevations for the Stage 4 and other future TMF raises to the ultimate crest
elevation of 3800 masl. The major schedule objectives include the following:
Minimize wet season construction to the extent practical
Minimize the required number of raises to reduce the requirements for

construction fleet mobilization
Maintain a minimum of 2 m of freeboard at all times
The following assumptions and conditions were used to develop the schedule:
A uniform tailing deposition rate of 17,000 tpd
Historic construction rates from dam construction to date were used to estimate
the construction durations. To be conservative, a factor of safety of two was
applied to the duration times used in the schedule.
The impoundment volume is based upon stage-storage data developed from

surveys of the existing ground performed by GFLCSA in July and August of 2009
and assumes that the TMF dam will be raised using the centerline method for all
post Stage 3 raises.
The impoundment capacity is based upon the stage-storage data noted above and
expected tailing densities developed from large-strain consolidation modeling
performed by MWH. Additional information describing the large strain
consolidation modeling performed is included in Section 10.3.
Filling of the Las Aguilas impoundment will begin in April of 2010.
A summary of the major conclusions from the TMF construction schedule are as follows:
The proposed TMF construction schedule consists of utilizing an 8 m lift for the
Stage 4 TMF raise (from elevation 3732 masl to 3740 masl) and uniform 6 m lifts
for all subsequent raises, to Stage 14 at elevation 3800.
March 2010
TMF construction can be performed largely in the dry season (April through
September), with three of the eleven stages being constructed entirely in the dry
season and eleven partially in the wet season. However, given the fact that a factor
of safety of two was applied to all duration times, it is likely that a majority of the
partial wet season construction campaigns could be performed entirely during the
dry season.
No construction is required in years 2016, 2019, 2021, and 2023.
A minimum freeboard of 2 m is maintained at all times, given the assumptions

listed above. The maximum freeboard during the construction of the TMF is 14 m
during the construction of the Stage 4 raise and 8.5 m for all subsequent raises.
Table 3 presents the conceptual level TMF schedule for Stages 4 through 14 (TMF
construction from elevation 3732 masl to elevation 3800 masl). Figure 5 presents the
results graphically, showing the crest elevation of the TMF dam, the UCB, and the TMF
pond with time.
Table 3 Summary of Proposed TMF Construction Schedule
YEAR
FINAL DAM
CREST
ELEVATION
(M)
2010
3740
2011
3746
April
July
6.56
2.96
2012
3752
January
April
3.72
2012
3758
September
December
7.44
2013
3764
July
October
2014
3770
July
October
4.22
2015
3776
10
August
November
8.54
N/A
2016
No construction
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.4
2017
3782
11
April
July
6.96
3.1
2018
3788
12
July
October
7.9
N/A
2019
No construction
2020
3794
2021
No construction
2022
3800
2023
No construction
5.2
ALLOWED
CONSTRUCTION
TMF
TIME
STAGE
(MONTHS)
13
14
START
MONTH
END
MONTH
MAX.
FREEBOARD
(M)
MIN.
FREEBOARD
(M)
January
July
14
3.77
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.5
May
August
7.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
March
June
6.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
DESCRIPTION OF FUTURE TMF RAISES
As noted above, it is proposed that future TMF raises be constructed at 6 m heights, from
elevation 3740 masl to elevation 3800 masl. The ultimate dam will be constructed of soil
and rockfill to elevation 3798 masl and topped with a 2 m high parapet wall (to account
for freeboard) to bring the ultimate elevation of the dam structure to 3800 masl. The dam
centerline will be similar to that proposed in the Starter Dam design (MWH, 2008),
spanning the Las Gordas and Las Aguilas valleys and extending to the southwest across
the La Hierba valley, as presented in Figure 6.
It is proposed that post-Stage 4 TMF dam construction utilizes the optimized centerline
method with an upstream slope and internal zones sloping at 0.6H:1V. The downstream
slope will generally be maintained at the steepened slope of 1.4H:1V utilized in the Stage
March 2010
4 design. However, to reduce the reduction in the capacity of the Las Aguilas LVU
facility, a portion of the downstream slope of the Las Aguilas portion of the ultimate dam
will be steepened, as discussed in Section 5.3 below.
Due to stability requirements, the upstream Zone 2B and Zone 5 material will be
maintained at horizontal widths of 6 m each, as specified for the Stage 4 raise. Due to the
steepness of the upstream slope proposed for the future raises, gabion facing and
geosynthetic reinforcement have been specified for placement within the upstream Zone
2B material to enhance slope stability and mitigate surficial raveling of the slope, as
presented in Figure 10. Further information regarding the slope reinforcement is included
in Section 7.5. Further information regarding the seepage and stability analyses
performed in support of the proposed design is included in Section 7.
A plan view of the site, including the proposed ultimate TMF, is presented in Figure 6.
Sections through the Las Aguilas, Las Gordas and La Hierba portions of the ultimate dam
are presented in Figures 7, 8, and 9.
5.3
DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ULTIMATE DAM DESIGN
As a result of the revision in the ultimate dam design from the centerline concept
proposed in the Starter Dam design (MWH, 2008) to the optimized centerline concept,
the downstream toe of the ultimate dam has shifted downstream. Within the Las Gordas
valley, this shift is not large enough to encroach upon the Tingo River or the Las Gordas
LVU facility (as presented in Figures 6 and 12). However, in the Las Aguilas Valley this
shift does encroach upon the Las Aguilas LVU facility (as presented in Figures 6 and
12).
This revised design, with a uniform downstream slope of 1.4H:1V, results in a reduction
in the capacity of the Las Aguilas LVU facility from its maximum capacity of 17,300
cubic meters (m3) to approximately 11,800 m3 (neglecting storage capacity within the
rockfill voids and accounting for a 1 m freeboard for both cases). This is greater than the
minimum required Las Aguilas LVU capacity of 11,300 m3, accounting for the estimated
seepage from the impoundment, groundwater flows, and surface water flows. However,
this revised design results in rockfill overlying a substantial portion of the lined area,
increasing the risk of damage to the liner. This impacted area also includes the sump area
of the LVU facility, where a floating barge is expected to be installed to pump impounded
water to the Las Gordas LVU facility. In addition, placement of rockfill in this area would
prevent the use of a weir which is intended to be installed in the upstream portion of the
facility to measure flows into the Las Aguilas LVU facility.
To mitigate these issues, a modification to the downstream embankment slope in the
vicinity of the Las Aguilas LVU facility is proposed. This modification involves
steepening the downstream slope of the ultimate dam to 1.2H:1V from elevation 3765
masl and below in the vicinity of the Las Aguilas LVU facility (as shown on Figures 11
and 12). This design alteration results in an ultimate downstream embankment toe
location very close to the downstream toe of the ultimate dam as proposed in the Starter
Dam design. The inclusion of this steepened section reduces the amount of rockfill placed
within the facility bounds, allows for installation of a weir, does not intrude upon the
sump area and increases the available capacity of the Las Aguilas LVU facility to
approximately 16,500 m3 (neglecting storage capacity within the rockfill voids and
March 2010
accounting for a 1 m freeboard). Slope stability analyses indicate that this proposed
steepening provides factors of safety in excess of the required minimum values, as
discussed in Section 7.3.
It should be noted that a variety of options exist for mitigating the effects of the
downstream ultimate embankment toe on the Las Aguilas LVU facility. Other options
include the construction of a retaining wall near the LVU facility or the use of a lower
height steepened section with a steeper slope. Further work to optimize this design feature
should be performed at a later date when additional information is known regarding the
ultimate TMF design.
March 2010
6.0
6.1
UPDATED MATERIAL PROPERTIES
INTRODUCTION
Seepage and slope stability analyses were performed in support of the design of the Stage
4 TMF and the conceptual level future TMF raises, as described in Section 7. These
analyses utilized material properties from previously performed designs completed by
MWH and more recent information gained since their completion. Newly gained
information includes the results of investigations of the insitu tailing properties, a revised
evaluation of the rockfill strength envelope, and the results of hydraulic testing of the
Zone 1 and 5 materials, as discussed below.
6.2
TAILING EVALUATION
In the Starter Dam design report submitted by MWH in November of 2008, geotechnical
strength properties were estimated for the tailing materials for use in stability modeling of
the TMF dam. The estimated properties were based on tests conducted by Knight Piesold
(KP) in January of 2006. In the Starter Dam design report, it was noted that the tailing
samples tested by KP did not accurately reflect the tailing materials that would be
impounded in the TMF. Accordingly, it was noted that additional tailing characterization
testing should be conducted with actual production samples when they are available.
In 2009, investigations were performed under the supervision of MWH on tailing
deposited in the Las Gordas impoundment to estimate the shear strength of the tailing
materials and to evaluate the variation of the tailing profile with depth. The purpose of
testing was to develop data for use in stability analyses and to further understand the
tailing profile being developed from the current deposition method. Testing was
performed using a floating platform near the upstream face of the Las Gordas Dam
utilizing cone penetration and vane shear methods in a grid pattern with each gridline
aligned parallel to the Starter Dam. In addition, limited sampling was performed with
Shelby tubes to allow for index testing.
A total of nineteen cone penetration tests with pore pressure measurements (CPTU),
seven cone penetration tests (CPT), and ten vane shear tests (VST) were performed as a
part of the investigation program. CPTU testing was only performed to depths ranging
from 8 to 14 m due to risk of exceeding the maximum capacity of the floating platform
and buckling of the CPTU rods. CPTU tests provided measurements of tip resistance and
side friction to penetration of the cone and measurements of the pore pressures
encountered. These results were used to estimate the shear strength of the soils by means
of empirical relationships and bearing capacity theory and to classify the encountered
materials via empirical relationships. CPT testing was performed to supplement the
testing program at depths were CPTU testing was not performed with the recorded tip
resistance values used to estimate the shear strength of the encountered materials. VST
results were also used to estimate the shear strength of the material, with peak and
residual values being estimated.
March 2010
The general conclusions from the tailing investigation program are as follows:
The thickness of very soft and soft soils generally increase as distance from the
dam increases
Lenses of weak soils were found underlying stiffer soils, as typically seen in
tailing materials deposited subaqueously.
The fluids in the impoundment were found to be separated into two layers, with a
clear layer of water overlying a layer of turbid water containing extra fine tailing
(EFT) in suspension.
Based on the tailing investigation program, a tailing profile was developed. A summary
of this profile is as follows:
Clear water was encountered from the surface to depths of 0.4 to 2.6 m
Turbid water, with soils in suspension (EFT), was encountered at depths of 1 to

4.1 m
Soft and Very soft soils (with a CPT tip resistance value, qc, less than 0.4 MPa)
were encountered from depths of 3 to 10.5 m
Medium and Stiff soils (with qc > 0.4 MPa) were encountered at depths of 5 m
and greater
As there is a relatively high amount of spatial variation and interbedding of the four
material types described above, the tailing profile described above was simplified for the
purposes of analysis into three zones, water, weak tailing, and tailing. Strength
parameters were selected to characterize these three zones based on the results of the
insitu tailing investigation, and were modeled as a ratio of the effective overburden stress,
/'v, as presented in Table 4.
Table 4 Estimated Strength of Materials in Tailing Profile
STRENGTH
/'v
Water
N/A
Weak Tailing
0.12
Tailing
0.30
Residual Tailing Strength (Post-Earthquake)
0.07
The tailing strength parameters listed above were utilized in a back-analysis performed to
estimate the minimum Zone 1 and 5 shear strength parameters, as described in Section
7.3.3. All other stability analyses were performed assuming a homogeneous tailing
material, as described in Section 7.3.2.
Additional information regarding the tailing investigation program is included in
Appendix A.
March 2010
6.3
EVALUATION OF ROCKFILL STRENGTH
The rockfill strength envelope used in the stability analyses performed in support of the
Starter Dam design (MWH, 2008) was based on relationships developed by Leps (1970)
and used preliminary information regarding the rockfill properties as inputs to the
evaluation. The relationships developed by Leps are based on an empirical database and
can be used to relate the friction angle to the normal stress for a rockfill. The assigned
rockfill strength and dam configuration (with a downstream slope of 1.5H:1V) utilized in
the starter dam design resulted in a downstream factor of safety of about 1.5 for the
ultimate configuration of the Gordas dam under long-term static conditions (MWH 2008).
Based on a preliminary evaluation of the dam using the rockfill strength envelope from
the Starter Dam analyses, it was estimated that steepening the slope to 1.4H:1V would
result in a long-term factor of safety less than 1.5, which would be lower than the
minimum allowable factor of safety for this loading condition (see Table 2).
Since the time that the initial rockfill strength estimate was developed, the site quarry has
been commissioned and new evaluations of the rockfill properties have been performed.
These evaluations include unconfined compressive strength, point load testing and
gradations of the rockfill. The results of rockfill strength testing indicate average
unconfined compressive strengths between 62 and 67 MPa. Based upon gradations
performed on Zone 2B material produced at the site, the rockfill is generally well graded,
with a limited amount of fines (MWH, 2009d). Additionally, construction using the
produced rockfill has been based on good practice with the rockfill material being placed
in maximum loose lifts of 1 m; moisture conditioned, and then compacted with 8 passes
of a 19 tonne vibratory smooth drum roller.
Based on the information from site, the rockfill is considered to be well-graded and well
compacted. Additionally, the quarried rhyolite and limestone encountered at the site has a
UCS slightly less than the strong particles defined by Leps. Accordingly, a
representative shear strength envelope for the rockfill at Cerro Corona would fall between
the Average Rockfill shear strength envelope and the High-density, Well-graded
Strong Particles envelope. This revised rockfill envelope, selected to fall between these
two categories, represents an increase in the shear strength envelope from that estimated
during the Starter Dam design. Figure 13 presents a plot of the rockfill strength envelope
utilized in the Starter Dam design versus the revised strength envelope estimated for the
Stage 4 TMF raise.
It is important to note that the revised rockfill strength evaluation is based on properties
obtained from the rockfill currently being quarried at the site and the use of good
construction practice in placing the material. If the construction practice or rockfill
properties vary, the results of this evaluation may become invalid and should be
reviewed. Additional information regarding the selection of this rockfill strength envelope
is presented in Appendix B.
March 2010
6.4
ZONE 1 AND 5 HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES
During the Starter Dam design, saturated hydraulic conductivity values of 1 10-4 and
1 10-6 cm/s were used to characterize the Zone 5 and 1 materials, respectively. These
same values were specified as minimum values for the Zone 5 and 1 materials in the
construction specifications accompanying the Starter Dam design. The specified Zone 5
saturated hydraulic conductivity value was later reduced to 1 10-5 cm/s in the Stage 3
TMF construction specifications. Testing performed during construction of the TMF to
date has indicated average saturated hydraulic conductivity values of less than 1 10-6
cm/s for the Zone 1 material and approximately 10-5 cm/s for the Zone 5 material (MWH,
2009d).
As noted previously, to counteract the reduction in the Zone 5 width associated with the
proposed TMF design, the specification for the Zone 5 material placed above elevation
3732 masl (for Stage 4 construction and beyond) has been revised to require the
placement of Zone 5 material with a reduced saturated hydraulic conductivity of 10-6
cm/s. It is expected that complying with this revised specification can be accomplished by
limited additional moisture conditioning and compactive effort during construction which
should have minimal effects on the overall construction of the TMF dam. Accordingly,
for the purposes of analysis, two values were selected to represent the saturated hydraulic
conductivity of the material. Up to an elevation of 3732 masl, a saturated hydraulic
conductivity of 1 10-5 cm/s was used to characterize the Zone 5 material. Above that
elevation, to the ultimate crest elevation of 3800 masl, a saturated hydraulic conductivity
of 1 10-6 cm/s was used, matching the value used for the Zone 1 material.
March 2010
7.0
7.1
ENGINEERING ANALYSES
INTRODUCTION
Seepage and slope stability analyses were performed in support of the design of the Stage
4 TMF and the conceptual level future TMF raises. Sections within the Quebrada Las
Gordas and Quebrada Las Aguilas were evaluated for both the Stage 4 Dam raise and for
future raises up to the ultimate TMF elevation of 3800 masl. The sections analyzed were
based on a compilation of record surveys and proposed designs for Stage 2 and 3 TMF
construction that is currently underway. Reinforcement analyses were performed to
evaluate and design upstream face reinforcement for the future dam raises using a
combination of gabions and geosynthetic reinforcement. Additionally, a preliminary
seismic deformation analysis was performed (a final deformation analysis is currently
being performed) to estimate the displacement of various locations of the ultimate TMF
dam due to seismic loading
The following sections discuss the analyses performed and summarize the results of the
analyses.
7.2
SEEPAGE ANALYSIS
7.2.1
Introduction
A steady-state seepage analysis was performed using SEEP/W version 7.15 (GEOSLOPE, 2009a), a finite element software for analyzing pore pressure distribution in and
flow through porous media. The model was used to estimate seepage through the TMF
dams and foundation materials and to estimate gradients through the low permeability
dam materials.
7.2.2
Geometry and Evaluated Cases
The seepage analysis was performed for the TMF Dam using sections of the dam through
the Quebrada Las Gordas and the Quebrada Las Aguilas. The sections considered are
simplified versions of those presented in the Stage 4 TMF Construction Drawings
developed by MWH with future raises modeled upon it at a upstream slope of 0.6H:1V
and a downstream slope remaining at 1.4H:1V, as described in Section 5.2. The existing
surface presented in the sections is based upon a combination of survey data (from a
survey performed by GFLCSA in November of 2009) and designs for elements that have
not yet been constructed but are expected to be constructed by the onset of Stage 4 TMF
construction. Further information regarding the existing surface is included in the Stage 4
TMF Construction Drawings developed by MWH (Appendix I).
Four cases were considered for the seepage analyses performed:
1. Stage 4 TMF The TMF dam constructed to elevation 3740 masl and the
maximum tailing and impounded water elevation at 3730 masl, allowing for 10 m
of freeboard.
March 2010
of freeboard.
of freeboard.
4. Stage 14 TMF The TMF dam constructed to the ultimate dam elevation of 3800
masl and the maximum tailing and impounded water elevation at 3798 masl,
allowing for 2 m of freeboard.
The impounded tailing material was modeled as a homogeneous material with a beach
slope of 1.5%, as estimated in previous studies (KP, 2006). For each case considered, the
impounded water level was conservatively assumed to be equivalent to the maximum
tailing elevation. This represents a conservative assumption as this would be an extreme
case, particularly for the later raises where the impoundment surface area is large. More
information, including figures presenting the cases and geometry utilized in the seepage
analysis are included in Appendix C.
7.2.3
Material Properties
The saturated hydraulic conductivities utilized in the seepage analysis are summarized in
Table 5. Generally, the saturated hydraulic conductivities were obtained from the seepage
analysis performed in support of the Starter Dam Design (MWH, 2008). However, as
noted in Section 6.4, the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the Zone 5 material was
revised to reflect the results of testing of placed Zone 5 material and alterations to the
construction specifications. Accordingly, for the purposes of analysis, a saturated
hydraulic conductivity of 1x10-5 cm/s was utilized for Zone 5 material below elevation
3732 masl, while a saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1x10-6 cm/s was utilized for the
Zone 5 material above elevation 3732 masl, reflecting the revised construction
specifications and placement methodology for future raises.
Table 5 Summary of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivities
Utilized in the Seepage Analysis
MATERIAL
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

(cm/s)
Zone 1
1 10
Zones 2, 2a, 2b
Zone 5 (Below El 3732 masl)
1 10
-5
Zone 5 (Above El 3732 masl)
1 10
-6
Tailing
kh = 5 10
-6
kv = 5 10
Upper Bedrock
1 10
Lower Bedrock
1 10
-5
Grout Curtain
1 10
-5
-6
-5
-4
kh: Horizontal Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

kv: Vertical Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
March 2010
All materials in the analysis, with exception of the bedrock, were characterized using the
Saturated/Unsaturated model in SEEP/W. The unsaturated material properties used in the
seepage analysis were developed using the built-in estimation option for the volumetric
water content function. The estimated water content functions are selected based on
material type (e.g., silty sand, clay). Hydraulic conductivity functions were estimated
using the water content functions and either the van Genuchten model (rockfill) or the
Fredlund-Xing model (all materials except the rockfill and bedrock). The volumetric
water content curves and the hydraulic conductivity curves used to characterize the
unsaturated properties of the embankment and impoundment materials are included in
Appendix C.
7.2.4
Boundary Conditions
Constant head boundary conditions representing tailing pond water level elevation were
applied to the top of the tailing impoundment. The downstream boundary conditions
consisted of a potential seepage face boundary condition. A potential seepage face
boundary acts as a no-flow boundary until it becomes saturated, after which flow will
occur across the boundary with no pressure at the surface.
Numerical issues developed in the seepage model due to the presence of materials with
several orders of magnitude difference in the hydraulic conductivities (i.e., core material
adjacent to filter/transition/rockfill material). The numerical issues were resolved by
removing the downstream materials from the model (Zones 2, 2A, 3, 4 and downstream
Zone 2B) and applying the potential seepage face boundary to the downstream side of the
Zone 1 material and along the ground surface beneath the downstream shell. The removal
of coarse-grained materials in the model is the procedure recommended by GEO-SLOPE
(2009a) for resolving numerical issues stemming from steep hydraulic conductivity
functions and large differences in material permeabilities. This methodology is valid as
long as the filter, transition and rockfill zones are free-draining (negligible head losses)
and that the zones have the capacity to convey downstream any water coming through the
cores materials (Zone 1 and Zone 5). This was verified by comparing the flow
characteristics of the adjacent Zone 1 and 3 materials, which represent the critical flow
interface (MWH, 2010a).
7.2.5
Seepage Analysis Results
The estimated phreatic surfaces and hydraulic gradient for each analyzed case are
included in Appendix C. Estimated seepage rates (per meter width of dam) and the
estimated total seepage for flow through and beneath the dams for the cases and
conditions evaluated are summarized in Table 6. Total seepage is representative of the
unit flux (m3/s/m) multiplied by an assumed effective width for the modeled section. The
calculations used to estimate the total seepage are included in Appendix C.
March 2010
Table 6 Summary of Estimated Seepage Rates

GORDAS
SEEPAGE
RATE
3
(m /s/m)
SEEPAGE
ANALYSIS
AGUILAS
TOTAL SEEPAGE*
3
(m /s)
TOTAL
SEEPAGE*
(L/s)
SEEPAGE
RATE
3
(m /s/m)
TOTAL
SEEPAGE*
3
(m /s)
TOTAL
SEEPAGE*
(L/s)
-5
0.0081
8.1
-5
0.0012
12
-5
0.029
29
-5
0.036
36
Stage 4 TMF
10 m Freeboard
(Case 1)
3.18 10
-5
0.0068
6.8
3.52 10
Stage 4 TMF
2 m Freeboard
(Case 2)
3.54 10
-5
0.0076
7.6
5.35 10
Stage 11 TMF
2 m Freeboard
(Case 3)
5.52 10
-5
0.014
14
8.12 10
Stage 14 TMF
2 m Freeboard
(Case 4)
6.64 10
-5
0.017
17
9.36 10
*Total seepage rates were approximated based on valley and dam geometry (see Appendix C).
Note that the analysis assumes that water infiltration into the system from other sources
such as groundwater or surface water is negligible. These sources should be considered
when sizing infrastructure.
7.2.6
Conclusions
For both the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas dams, the estimated total seepage rates are 12
L/s or less for Stage 4 conditions. The current seepage rates measured in the field during
operation of the TMF in the Las Gordas valley are approximately 1 L/s. This variation is
considered reasonable as conservative hydraulic properties were adopted for the bedrock
and Zone 1 and 5 materials.
For both the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas dams, the estimated seepage rates for the
ultimate (Stage 14) conditions are less than 40 L/s. In the seepage analysis performed in
support of the Starter Dam design (MWH, 2008), the estimated total seepage rates for the
ultimate configuration of the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas dams were approximately 18
L/s and 16 L/s, respectively. This variation is considered due to differences in the
methods of calculation used to extrapolate the seepage flux obtained from SEEP/W.
Decisions based on the seepage rates estimated above should consider the variability in
the hydraulic conductivity along with the variability induced by extrapolating twodimensional models to estimate three-dimensional seepage volumes. The properties
governing the response of the system may vary by an order of magnitude or more, and
three-dimensional effects are not accounted for in detail in these models. Only an
approximation of the three-dimensional effects on the resulting seepage estimates is
provided.
March 2010
7.3
STABILITY ANALYSES
7.3.1
Introduction
Slope stability analyses were performed in support of the Stage 4 and post-Stage 4 TMF
dam design. These analyses include performing a general stability analysis to evaluate
both upstream and downstream stability of the TMF dam at various elevations as well as
five additional analyses to estimate material properties and to evaluate the sensitivity of
the estimated factors of safety to variations in specific material parameters. The five
additional analyses performed are as follows:
1. Back Analysis of Zone 1 and 5 Shear Strength This analysis was performed to
estimate the minimum allowable Zone 1 and 5 undrained shear strength based on
the stability of the Las Gordas dam during construction of the TMF to date.
2. Evaluation of Freeboard Sensitivity This analysis was performed to evaluate
the sensitivity of the factors of safety estimated in the general stability analysis to
the maximum tailing elevation.
3. Evaluation of Minimum Required Geosynthetic Reinforcement Strength
This analysis was performed to evaluate the sensitivity of the factors of safety
estimated in the general stability analysis to the tensile strength of the upstream
face reinforcement. The reinforcement parameters utilized in the general stability
analysis are based upon those developed to describe the reinforcement placed in
the Stage 3 TMF and may not be directly applicable to future construction.
4. Evaluation of Minimum Required Tailing Strength for Use of Centerline
Raise Method This analysis was performed to estimate the minimum required
tailing strength to allow for the use of the centerline raise method in the future.
5. Sensitivity of Optimized Centerline Stability to Tailing Strength This
analysis was performed to evaluate the sensitivity of the stability of the upstream
slope of the dam to variations in the tailing strength parameters, assuming the use
of an optimized centerline raise method. This analysis was utilized in conjunction
with the results of the tailing evaluation to conservatively estimate the long-term
and short-term tailing strength parameters for use in this study.
Stability analyses were performed using SLOPE/W version 7.15 (GEO-SLOPE 2009b).
SLOPE/W is a two-dimensional computer program that performs slope stability
computations using limit equilibrium methods. The Morgenstern-Price method
(Morgenstern and Price, 1965) with a half-sine function for inter-slice forces was selected
for performing the computations in SLOPE/W. The method uses both circular and noncircular shear surfaces and satisfies both moment and force equilibrium. The sections,
geometry, material properties, and minimum failure surface depths utilized were varied in
the various analyses performed, as described in the sections below.
The sections below discuss the results of these analyses, beginning with a discussion of
the general analysis and then discussing the additional analyses performed as addendums
to the general analysis. Additional information pertaining to all of the stability analyses
can be found in Appendix D.
March 2010
7.3.2
General Stability Analysis
The general stability analysis was performed for critical TMF dam sections in the
Quebrada Las Gordas and the Quebrada Las Aguilas to evaluate the upstream and
downstream stability of the Stage 4 TMF raise and future conceptual level TMF dam
raises to the ultimate Stage 14 TMF elevation of 3800 masl. A minimum failure surface
depth of 0.3 m was utilized for the downstream cases analyzed and a minimum failure
surface depth of 3 m was utilized for the upstream cases evaluated. This was done to
account for slope reinforcement that will be placed along the upstream face of future
raises, per the design concept presented in this document.
7.3.2.1
Model Geometry and Stages Evaluated
The cross sections used in the analysis are simplified versions of those presented in the
Stage 4 TMF Construction Drawings developed by MWH. The existing surface presented
in the sections is based upon a combination of survey data (from a survey performed by
GFLCSA in November of 2009) and designs for elements that have not yet been
constructed but are expected to be constructed by the onset of Stage 4 TMF construction.
Further information regarding the existing surface is included in the Stage 4 TMF
Construction Drawings developed by MWH, included as Appendix J.
Future raises (post-Stage 4) are based upon the conceptual level design concept presented
in this report and the conceptual-level scheduling work performed by MWH, as discussed
in Section 5.1. For all subsequent (post-Stage 4) raises of the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas
dam an upstream slope of 0.6H:1V was used and a downstream slope of 1.4H:1V was
used, with the exception of the Las Aguilas section of the dam in the vicinity of the Las
Aguilas LVU facility where a steepened slope of 1.2H:1V was used from elevation 3675
masl and below, as discussed in Section 5.3. Note that the currently proposed conceptual
level design incorporates a 2 m tall parapet wall to bring the dam to its ultimate crest
elevation of 3800 masl while the idealized Stage 14 design evaluated in the stability
analyses performed in support of the design neglect this wall and assume that the dam
will be constructed to elevation 3800 masl using earth and rockfill.
The TMF dam design concept presented in this report utilizes the optimized centerline
raise concept. The use of the optimized centerline method rather than the originally
designed centerline method requires the use of additional material and increases the time
and cost required to construct the TMF dam. Accordingly, it may be desired to revert to
the originally envisioned centerline construction method when conditions allow. As an
indicator, an analysis was performed to evaluate the required tailing strength necessary to
support centerline raises, assuming the method would be used from Stage 11 through the
completion of dam construction. The results of this analysis are discussed in Section
7.3.3.
To comply with the minimum project stability criteria, the width of the Zone 5 material
was reduced by 3 m from its original design value of 9 m to 6 m. The removed material
was replaced with the upstream face Zone 2B rockfill, increasing its width from the
originally designed width of 3 m to 6 m. This revision to the zone widths was
implemented for the Stage 4 TMF raise and all subsequent raises.
March 2010
In conjunction with increasing the width of the upstream Zone 2B material, reinforcement
was included in the upstream Zone 2B material for the post-Stage 4 raises to increase the
estimated factors of safety for the stages evaluated. The reinforcement was placed at a 1
m vertical spacing extending the full width of the upstream Zone 2B material. While the
Stage 4 TMF design calls for geosynthetic tails attached to the gabion facing, they will
extend only 1 m from the gabion and are conservatively not modeled in these analyses.
Site observations indicate that a tailing beach is slowly beginning to form at the site,
replacing the highly variable conditions observed during early operations and during the
CPT investigation of the impoundment. It is expected that this trend will continue for
future raises. Accordingly, for the purposes of seepage and stability analyses, the tailing
was modeled as a uniform material with a slope of 1.5%, as estimated in a previously
performed site study (KP, 2006). Any substantial variations from this assumption should
be reviewed to evaluate their impact on the results presented in these analyses.
In evaluating the upstream stability of the TMF dam in the general stability analysis, the
tailing and impounded water level was set at 2 m below the crest of the previously
constructed raise to account for freeboard requirements. For the downstream evaluations,
the maximum tailing and impounded water level was set at 2 m below the crest of the
raise being evaluated to account for freeboard concerns. To evaluate the effect of the
selection of this tailing geometry, a sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the
variation in the estimated upstream factors of safety to the maximum tailing elevation.
The results of this sensitivity analysis are included in Section 7.3.3.
Table 7 presents a summary of the stages evaluated for both the upstream and
downstream slopes of the Las Gordas and Las Aguilas portions of the TMF dam. The
piezometric surfaces utilized in the analysis were developed in seepage analyses
performed for this analysis.
Table 7 TMF Stages Evaluated in the General Stability Analysis
TMF STAGE
CREST ELEVATION
(mamsl)
3740
3746
3752
3758
11
3782
14
3800
The ultimate TMF dam sections utilized in the general stability analysis are presented in
Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix D for the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas sections of the dam,
respectively.
March 2010
7.3.2.2
Loading Conditions
Three cases were considered when evaluating the stability of the TMF dam:
1. Short-Term (End of Construction)
2. Long-Term
3. Post-Earthquake
Only static conditions were evaluated in the analyses described in this brief as seismic
deformation analyses were separately performed for the TMF dam, as described in
Section 7.4.
For each of the three cases evaluated, varying parameters were used to represent the
material strength under the loading condition. Table 8 presents a summary of the
parameters used for each of the three cases considered:
Table 8 Summary of Strength Parameters Utilized in Each Loading Condition
STRENGTH PARAMETERS
CASE
ZONES 1 AND 5
OTHER ZONES
1 Short-Term (End of Construction)
Total Strength Parameters
Effective Strength Parameters
2 Long-Term
3 Post-Earthquake
Total Strength Parameters with 20%

1
Strength Reduction
Effective Strength Parameter

Residual Tailing Strength
Note:
1. A 20% strength reduction was also applied to the La Jalca tailing for the Las Aguilas section of the TMF to
characterize post-earthquake conditions.
7.3.2.3
Material Properties
The material properties utilized in this analysis were largely based on those utilized in the
Stage 3 TMF stability analysis performed by MWH (2009e) and parameters developed
for the Stage 4 raise by MWH to characterize the rockfill strength, as described in Section
6.3. Nonlinear normal stress/shear strength functions were used to characterize the Zone
1, 2, 2A, 2B, 4 and 5 and bedrock materials. Tables presenting data points that define
these functions are included in Appendix D.
The undrained shear strength parameters listed for the Zone 1 and 5 materials were
estimated from a back analysis performed by MWH, as discussed in Section 7.3.3. The
drained tailing strength listed below was conservatively assumed based on the results of a
sensitivity analysis performed by MWH, discussed in Section 7.3.3, and the results of the
tailing investigation program performed under the direction of MWH, as discussed in
Section 6.2.
Table 9 presents a summary of the material properties utilized in the general stability
analysis.
March 2010
Table 9 Summary of Earthwork Material Properties

Utilized in the General Stability Analysis
UNIT
WEIGHT
(kN/m3)
EFFECTIVE STRENGTH
COHESION
(kPa)
FRICTION
ANGLE
TOTAL STRENGTH
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH /v
(kPa)
RATIO
Zone 1
19
Shear/Normal Strength Function

(Table 1.1 Appendix D)
140
Zones 2, 2a, 2b
19

Zone 3
19
34
Zone 4
19

Zone 5
19

Upper Bedrock
20
Lower Bedrock
21
Residual Tailing (PostEarthquake)
17.5
Tailing
17.5
10
La Jalca Tailing (Las

Aguilas Dam Only)
20

34
(2)
(1)
140
(1)
0.07
Notes:
1. A 20% strength reduction was applied to the Zone 1 and 5 strength properties and an undrained shear strength of
112 kPa was used for post-earthquake conditions.
As a specific geosynthetic has not yet been selected for Stage 4 construction, and there is
no site-specific information available to characterize the Stage 4 (and post-Stage 4)
geosynthetic/rockfill interaction behavior, the reinforcement parameters utilized in
Slope/W to represent the Stage 4 and post-Stage 4 reinforcement are based on those
developed for the reinforcement placed during the Stage 3 raise of the Las Gordas dam.
Table 10 presents a summary of the reinforcement parameters utilized in Slope/W to
model the reinforcement.
Table 10 Summary of Geosynthetic Parameters
ITEM
VALUE
UNIT
Pull-out Resistance
Contact Cohesion
kPa
Contact Phi
22
Degrees
Interface Factor
---
Bond Safety Factor
1.6
---
Fabric Capacity
200
kN/m
Fabric Safety
3.6
---
Reinforcement Strength
Additional information regarding the selection of the geosynthetic reinforcement

parameters can be found in Section 7.5.3.
March 2010
7.3.2.4
General Stability Analysis Results
For the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas sections evaluated in this analysis and the cases
considered, the estimated factors of safety are greater than the recommended minimum
values for both the Stage 4 TMF and future raises. This includes the stability of the Las
Aguilas portion of the Stage 14 TMF with the steepened downstream slope. The results of
the stability analysis for the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas sections are included in
Attachments C and D to Appendix D, respectively. A summary of the results of the
analyses are presented in Table 11.
Table 11 Summary of the Results of the General Stability Analysis
TMF
STAGE
11
14
CREST
ELEVATION
(masl)
3740
3746
3752
3758
3782
3800
LAS AGUILAS DAM LAS GORDAS DAM

SECTION
SECTION
LOADING CASE
US
DS
US
DS
MINIMUM FS
1 - Short-term
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.3
2 - Long-term
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.5
3 - Post-Earthquake
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.2
1 - Short-term
2.1
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.3
2 - Long-term
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.5
3 - Post-Earthquake
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.2
1 - Short-term
2.0
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.3
2 - Long-term
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.5
3 - Post-Earthquake
1.9
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.2
1 - Short-term
2.0
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.3
2 - Long-term
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.5
3 - Post-Earthquake
1.9
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.2
1 - Short-term
2.0
1.6
2.0
1.6
1.3
2 - Long-term
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
3 - Post-Earthquake
1.9
1.6
1.9
1.6
1.2
1 - Short-term
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.6
1.3
2 - Long-term
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
3 - Post-Earthquake
1.9
1.5
1.9
1.6
1.2
There are a number of variables associated with this analysis such as the strength of the
deposited tailing, the reinforcement strength, and the undrained shear strength of the Zone
1 and 5 materials. The results of this analysis should be evaluated as additional
information regarding these parameters becomes available during the operation of the
TMF. The additional analyses performed represent an attempt to quantify the effects of
these variables on the stability of the TMF dam design. In addition, the results of the final
seismic deformation analysis should also be reviewed as a part of evaluating the stability
of the TMF dam design.
March 2010
7.3.3
Additional Stability Analyses
Additional analyses were performed to estimate material properties for the general
stability analysis and evaluate the sensitivity of the estimated factors of safety to
variations in specific material parameters. The following sections present a brief
discussion of the additional analyses as well as the results and conclusions of each of the
analyses. Additional information regarding these analyses can be found in Appendix D.
Note that these analyses are based on a number of assumptions including the tailing
strength, tailing beach slope and profile, freeboard, reinforcement parameters, and future
dam construction method. These factors should be accounted for in any future analyses
performed to evaluate the sensitivity of the dam stability to variations in parameters.
Back Analysis of Zone 1 and 5 Shear Strength
To estimate the undrained shear strength of the Zone 1 and 5 materials, back analyses of
previously existing TMF conditions during the construction of the TMF to date were
performed. Record construction data was reviewed and three potentially critical cases for
the Las Gordas dam were selected. As the dam did not fail or show any notable signs of
distress in the three cases identified above, a factor of safety of at least one can be
assumed for each case. Holding all other material properties constant, the undrained shear
strength of the Zone 1 and 5 materials were varied to identify the minimum allowable
undrained strength value. This methodology is inherently conservative as it assumes that
the cases evaluated are at the verge of failure, at factor of safety of one. Additional
information regarding the geometries utilized and the material properties used can be
found in Addendum 1 to Appendix D.
Only short-term loading conditions were evaluated to estimate the minimum undrained
shear strength of the Zone 1 and Zone 5 materials. Long-term and post-earthquake
conditions were not evaluated as an effective stress envelope is already available and
there is no evidence that post-earthquake conditions were encountered during the
construction of the TMF to date.
The results of this analysis indicate that the undrained shear strength of the Zone 1 and 5
materials must be at least 140 kPa to achieve a factor of safety of one or greater for the
three cases considered, given the assumptions and conditions utilized for the analysis.
Accordingly, a shear strength value of 140 kPa was selected to characterize the undrained
shear strength of the Zone 1 and 5 materials for the purposes of analyzing the Stage 4 and
proposed post-Stage 4 TMF designs in the general stability analysis. This result
compares with typical field engineering guidelines which suggest an undrained shear
strength between 100 and 200 kPa for a very stiff material that cannot be indented by the
thumb but can readily be indented by the thumbnail (Day, 2000).
Additional information regarding this analysis can be found in Addendum 1 to the
general stability analysis located in Appendix D.
Evaluation of Freeboard Sensitivity
This analysis was performed to evaluate the sensitivity of the factors of safety estimated
in the general stability analysis to the maximum tailing elevation. To perform this
March 2010
analysis, the upstream stability of the Stage 4 and 14 TMF dam were evaluated under
short-term, long-term, and post earthquake loading conditions. The analysis utilized the
same material properties and model geometry as the general analysis, with the exception
of the maximum tailing and water level elevation, which was varied at 2 m intervals from
the value used in the original stability analyses of 2 m below the previous raise crest
elevation to a maximum value of 12 m below the previous crest elevation. This results in
a maximum unsupported upstream face of 18 m for Stage 14 and a maximum
unsupported face of 20 m for Stage 4.
Considering the minimum recommended factors of safety, the maximum allowable
freeboard for Stage 4 is between 20 and 22 m while the maximum allowable freeboard for
Stage 14 is between 10 and 12 m, (neglecting the parapet wall proposed in the conceptual
level design for Stage 14). Accordingly, it is concluded that the factors of safety
estimated in the general stability analysis for the Stage 4 TMF are applicable to a variety
of freeboard conditions while the factors of safety estimated for future stages are more
highly dependent upon the impoundment freeboard. Scheduling should consider the
results of this analysis to maintain adequate stability during construction and operations.
Evaluation of Minimum Required Geosynthetic Reinforcement Strength
As discussed in Section 7.5.3, the reinforcement parameters used in the general stability
analysis may not be directly applicable to the reinforcement that will be placed in Stage 4
and post-Stage 4 construction as a specific geosynthetic has not yet been selected for use
and it is not expected that Zone 4 bedding material, placed around the geosynthetic in
Stage 3 construction, will be used in Stage 4 and post-Stage 4 construction. Accordingly,
the pull-out strength utilized in the general stability analysis may be conservative and the
fabric strength utilized in the general stability analysis may be non-conservative,
depending upon the installation damage to the selected geosynthetic due to placement
directly against rockfill.
To evaluate the allowable range of reinforcement tensile strengths an analysis was
performed to evaluate the sensitivity of the factors of safety estimated in the general
stability analysis to the tensile strength of the upstream face reinforcement. To perform
this analysis, the upstream stability of the Stage 5, 6 and 14 TMF dam were evaluated
under short-term, long-term, and post earthquake loading conditions. The analysis utilized
the same material properties and model geometry as the general analysis, with the
exception of the reinforcement tensile strength, which was varied. The reinforcement
strength was entered into Slope/W with a fabric safety factor of 1, allowing the results of
the analysis to be evaluated directly.
The results of this analysis indicate that an unfactored reinforcement tensile strength
between 5 and 10 kN/m is required to achieve factors of safety in excess of the
recommended minimum values. An unfactored reinforcement tensile strength between 20
and 50 kN/m is required to force the critical failure surface behind the upstream Zone 2B
material, outside of the reinforced zone. The use of the Stage 3 TMF reinforcement
tensile strength parameters (200 kN/m with a 3.6 factor = 55 kN/m allowable) in the
general stability analysis for Stage 4 and post-Stage 4 construction is consistent with this
March 2010
range. However, the actual allowable tensile strength and pullout resistance of
geosynthetic reinforcement placed under Stage 4 and post-Stage 4 conditions are
unknown at this time. Site specific testing will be required to estimate these parameters,
which should be compared to the results of this analysis to verify the suitability of the
specific geosynthetic being considered, as discussed in Section 7.5.3.
Evaluation of Minimum Required Tailing Strength for Use of Centerline Raise
Method
This analysis was performed to estimate the minimum required tailing strength to allow
for the use of the centerline raise method in the future. To perform this analysis, it was
assumed that the centerline raise method would be utilized to raise the dam to its ultimate
Stage 14 height, beginning with Stage 11 construction. In this evaluation the upstream
stability of the Stage 11 and 14 TMF dam were evaluated under short-term, long-term,
and post earthquake loading conditions. The analysis utilized the same material properties
and model geometry as the general analysis, with the exception of dam raise geometry
from Stage 11 onward. To model the centerline raise, the internal zones were constructed
vertically and a rockfill zone sloping at an angle of 1.4H:1V was placed along the
upstream face of the dam, founded on tailing materials.
The results of this analysis indicate that, assuming dam construction using the centerline
method for Stage 11 through Stage 14, a tailing friction angle between 25 and 30 degrees
is required to achieve factors of safety in excess of the recommended minimum values for
short-term and long-term loading conditions For post-earthquake conditions, an undrained
shear strength to effective overburden stress ratio between 0.3 and 0.4 for the tailing is
required to achieve factors of safety in excess of the recommended minimum values.
However, the suitability of any future centerline raise designs with regards to seismicity
will be based on the results of the final seismic deformation analysis (currently being
performed) which will consider the potential for some deformations and remedial
construction work in assessing the suitability of proposed centerline designs.
Sensitivity of Optimized Centerline Stability to Tailing Strength
This analysis was performed to evaluate the sensitivity of the stability of the upstream
slope of the dam to variations in the tailing strength parameters, assuming the use of an
optimized centerline raise method. This analysis was utilized in conjunction with the
tailing investigations performed under the supervision of MWH (as described in Section
6.2) to conservatively estimate the long-term and short-term tailing strength parameters
for use in this study. To perform this analysis, the upstream stability of the Stage 4 and 14
TMF dam were evaluated under short-term and long-term loading conditions. Postearthquake conditions were not evaluated as a post-earthquake tailing strength value had
already been selected. The analysis utilized the same material properties and model
geometry as the general analysis, with the exception of the tailing strength properties,
which were varied.
March 2010
A factor of safety of 1.5 was calculated for upstream face of the Stage 4 Las Gordas Dam
for tailing with friction angles ranging from 5 to 30 degrees, indicating that the upstream
stability of the Stage 4 Las Gordas Dam is insensitive to the tailing strength. However,
for the Stage 14 Las Gordas Dam, the stability of the upstream face is a function of the
tailing strength, with the estimated factors of safety for long-term loading ranging from
2.0 to 1.5 for tailing friction angles of 30 and 5 degrees, respectively.
A drained friction angle of 10 degrees was selected to characterize the tailing strength in
the general stability analysis as it approximates the tailing strength value suggested in the
tailing investigation program performed by MWH for tailing of medium and stiff
consistencies and results in factors of safety in excess of the specified minimum values.
The selection of this value is considered conservative as increasing tailing strength is
expected to occur with time in the TMF as a beach forms and tailing segregation
increases.
7.4
PRELIMINARY SEISMIC DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS
A seismic displacement analysis was performed to estimate the displacement of various

locations of the ultimate TMF dam due to seismic loading. MWH contracted GeoPentech,
Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm with expertise in seismic analyses, to
perform the analysis. The analysis described in this report is considered preliminary as it
was performed using a preliminary ultimate dam section and uses the rockfill strength
envelope utilized in the Starter Dam design (MWH, 2008). The section used is an
ultimate dam section through the Las Gordas valley which utilizes slightly differing
internal zone geometry than that of the current dam design. An updated analysis that
utilizes the revised rockfill strength envelope (as developed for the Stage 4 TMF design)
and the conceptual level ultimate dam design (as described in this report) is currently
being performed by GeoPentech. This updated analysis will be performed for ultimate
dam sections through both the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas valleys and will include an
evaluation of the Stage 4 dam through the Las Gordas valley. In addition, the updated
analysis will specifically address the effect of dragdown due to tailing consolidation on
the stability of the TMF dam. The results of this updated analysis will be reviewed and
forwarded when the work is complete.
The preliminary seismic displacement analysis was performed using FLAC (Itasca,
2010). FLAC is a two-dimensional explicit finite difference program for engineering
mechanics computation. The material properties used in the analysis were provided by
MWH and are included as Table 1 in Appendix E. The input ground motion was based
on the October 3, 1974 Arequipa, Peru earthquake. Additional information including the
modulus and damping ratio reduction curves and earthquake time histories and response
spectra are included in Appendix E.
Eight monitoring points were evaluated on the ultimate Las Gordas dam section for both
negative and positive polarity loading. These points are at the upstream toe, along the
upstream face, along the dam crest, along the downstream face and at the downstream
dam toe, as indicated on Figure 7 in Appendix E. The results of the analysis indicate
increasing deformations with dam height with maximum displacements ranging from -
March 2010
0.12 to 0.15 m estimated at the crest of the dam. For a complete summary of the estimated
deflections, refer to Table 3 located in Appendix E.
7.5
7.5.1
UPSTREAM FACE REINFORCEMENT

Introduction
Due to the steepness of the upstream face of the dam for both Stage 4 and post-Stage 4
construction, there is concern as to whether there will be sufficient lateral support to
allow for placement and compaction of the rockfill along the upstream face of the TMF
dam and if raveling of the rockfill face will be an issue during the construction and
service life of the dam raise. Slope stability analyses indicate that surficial slope failures
(raveling) may be a concern as without upstream reinforcement (and assuming a
minimum failure surface depth of 0.1 m) factors of safety of 1.4 and 1.1 are estimated for
the Stage 4 and Stage 14 configurations of the Las Gordas dam section, respectively.
According to the US Forest Service (USFS) Retaining Wall Design Guide, slopes in
excess of 1H:1V generally require reinforcement to achieve surficial stability. Attempts to
construct steeper unreinforced faces have failed, with a 1H:1V slope often being the final
result. Similarly, the Mirafi design guide notes that reinforced slopes steeper than
approximately 1H:1V typically require facing support during construction (Ten Cate,
2002). In the construction of an access road for Jingping Dam project in China,
reinforcement was added to provide surficial stability. A case study on the project notes
that the use of the reinforcement was to ensure the stability of the face, particularly in
earthquake conditions. They [the reinforcement] also assist in achieving good compaction
of the fill close to the face (Dai, Z.J., et al., 2008).
Historically, dams with slopes as steep as 0.75H:1V have been constructed using dumped
rockfill with hand placed rocks along the facing to maintain the face slope during rock
dumping (Breitenbach). However, in these cases, the dam slopes were eventually covered
with timber facing and it is unknown what safety factors were achieved or seismic
conditions encountered. However, this does illustrate that steepened rockfill slopes have
been constructed successfully using forming agents (such as hand-placed rocks).
As raveling of the slope during construction and operations could present a safety hazard
to mine personnel and could damage mine equipment and tailing delivery systems, the
inclusion of face reinforcement is deemed necessary to mitigate this hazard. Additionally,
slope stability analyses indicate that the presence of slope reinforcement is necessary to
achieve factors of safety against sliding within the upstream Zone 2B fill in excess of the
recommended minimum values. To achieve lateral support to allow for placement and
compaction or rockfill along the steep upstream face and to increase slope stability,
upstream face reinforcement has been designed for the sloping zone portion of the Stage 4
TMF raise (the Las Gordas portion of the raise) and the post-Stage 4 raises to the ultimate
dam configuration (Stage 14). To reinforce the upstream embankment face, it is proposed
that gabions with geosynthetic tails be used for the Stage 4 TMF raise and all future raises
that utilize the optimized centerline design concept. The following sections discuss the
upstream face reinforcement concept and the rationale behind the selected concept.
March 2010
7.5.2
Gabions
Gabions were selected for use in reinforcing the upstream dam face based on discussions
with GFLCSA personnel who have indicated that they are a preferred option in terms of
constructability and safety. It is understood that there is significant local knowledge with
regard to the use of gabions and that they were used successfully in stabilizing the La
Jalca Tailing near the toe of the Las Aguilas Starter Dam. Based on constructability
concerns and gabion sizing calculations (MWH, 2010b), 1 m wide by 1 m tall gabions in
lengths of 3 or 5 m (along the face of the dam) filled with locally produced rockfill
material were specified for use. The calculations performed to develop the gabion sizing
evaluated the stability of the gabions in terms of overturning and sliding as well as
eccentricity. It is recommended that the internal stability of the gabions (i.e. resistance to
bursting) be confirmed by the gabion supplier based on site-specific parameters prior to
procurement.
The gabion facing is to be placed in a battered manner, as shown on the Construction
Drawings, with the joints of overlying gabions staggered as successive lifts are placed. To
provide additional lateral support during construction and facility operation, geosynthetic
tails are specified to be placed extending from each gabion into the adjacent upstream
Zone 2B material. For the Stage 4 TMF raise, these tails are to be embedded 1 m into the
Zone 2B material to provide additional lateral support to the gabions during construction
and operation and to increase the strength of the Zone 2B fill near the dam face. Due to
the steepness of the post-Stage 4 TMF dam upstream slope, the geosynthetic tails are to
be extended the full width of the upstream Zone 2B material for the post-Stage 4 raises,
as shown in Figure 10. For these raises, the tails will serve the same function as the Stage
4 geosynthetic tails and will also improve the global stability of the upstream face of the
dam by shifting the critical failure surface deeper within the dam face.
Due to its higher tensile strength and symmetric strength properties, welded wire mesh
was specified for use rather than twisted wire mesh (Modular Gabion Systems). Similarly,
the use of spiral binders to connect adjacent gabions was specified as this connection
method offers the greatest joint strength of any of the three typical options methods: spiral
binders, hog rings, and lacing wires (MGS). PVC coating was specified for the welded
wire mesh as pH readings as high as 12 have been recorded at the Cerro Corona TMF,
which is within the range where PVC coated mesh is typically recommended (Hy-Ten
Gabion Solutions). This recommendation is supported by the US Army Corps of
Engineers Unified Facilities Guide Specifications which state that PVC coated welded
wire mesh is recommended for use in aggressive or polluted environments, or when the
aggressiveness of the site is moderately unpredictable or variable from low to high
(USACE, 2008). However, the use of alternate gabion coatings may be allowed, per the
approval of the Engineer. Additional information regarding the proposed gabion
reinforcement method and gabion specifications is included in the construction drawings
and specifications located in Appendix I.
March 2010
7.5.3
Geosynthetic Reinforcement
Geosynthetic reinforcement extending as tails from the upstream gabion facing has been
specified as a component of the upstream face dam reinforcement to provide additional
lateral support to the gabion facing during construction and operation and to increase the
strength of the Zone 2B fill near the dam face. For the post-Stage 4 raises, the
geosynthetic reinforcement will be extended the full width of the upstream Zone 2B
material and will serve to increase the global stability of the upstream face by shifting the
critical failure surface deeper within the dam face, as shown in Figure 10.
As a part of the Stage 3 TMF raise, the upstream face of the Gordas Dam was reinforced
with geogrid (MWH, 2009b, 2009e). The purpose of the reinforcement was to strengthen
the upstream slope of the Las Gordas raise (which was constructed at a slope of 1H:1V)
to satisfy the required factors of safety. The reinforcement was placed between 0.15 m
thick layers of Zone 4 material serving as a bedding layer to protect the reinforcement
from the adjacent rockfill. Based on this configuration, parameters were developed to
characterize the geosynthetic reinforcement placed during Stage 3 construction, as
presented in Attachment B in Appendix D. These parameters were specifically
developed to allow for modeling the Stage 3 reinforcement in Slope/W.
To reduce the amount of Zone 4 material required and speed construction of the dam, the
proposed TMF design for Stage 4 and future raises calls for the placement of the
geosynthetic directly upon the upstream Zone 2B rockfill. As a result, the geosynthetic
properties developed for the Stage 3 TMF slope reinforcement are not directly
representative of the conditions expected in the future reinforcement concept. However,
these parameters were used in the stability analysis to characterize the reinforcement
placed in the upstream dam face of the Stage 4 and post-Stage 4 TMF dam. This was
done for convenience as a specific geosynthetic has not yet been selected for use and
there is no site-specific information available regarding geosynthetic tensile strength and
pullout behavior. The pullout resistance parameters developed to characterize the Stage 3
geosynthetic reinforcement are based upon the placement of bedding around the
geosynthetic, as was done in the Stage 3 TMF raise. However, as bedding will not be
placed around the geosynthetic reinforcement in future TMF raises, the pullout strength
modeled is likely conservative. The safety factor developed for the fabric strength also
assumes that bedding material will be placed around the geosynthetic. This assumption
may be optimistic as the placement of rockfill directly upon the geosynthetic will likely
result in increased installation damage.
There is limited industry information available regarding the performance of
geosynthetics in contact with rockfill. Both the USFS and FHWA retaining wall design
manuals list the maximum recommended backfill particle size as 4 inches (10 cm)
(FHWA, 2001, USFS, 1994). Installation damage studies on a wide range of materials
were recently performed (Hufenus, et al., 2005) using a variety of backfill materials. This
work included the use of angular coarse grained backfills with particle sizes up to 150
mm (6 inches). However, none of these studies are close to the Zone 2B gradation which
specifies a maximum particle size of less than 910 mm (36 inches). The backfill gradation
is considered critical as installation damage to the geosynthetic is a major factor in the
development of the long-term design strength.
March 2010
To evaluate the effect of the use of the Stage 3 based geosynthetic reinforcement tensile
strength parameters, a parametric analysis (included in Appendix D) was performed to
evaluate the sensitivity of the estimated factors of safety to variations in the reinforcement
strength. The results of this analysis indicate that an unfactored reinforcement tensile
strength between 5 to 10 kN/m is required to achieve factors of safety in excess of the
recommended minimum values and a reinforcement tensile strength between 20 and 50
kN/m is required to force the critical failure surface behind the upstream Zone 2B
material, outside of the reinforced zone.
In the absence of site-specific information and relevant industry references, it is
recommended that a geosynthetic with a minimum ultimate (unfactored) tensile strength
of 200 kN/m be selected for use in Stage 4 TMF construction. It is expected that the use
of a reinforcement with this ultimate strength will be sufficient to achieve a long-term
(factored) strength of at least 10 kN/m, which corresponds to the lower bound required
reinforcement tensile strength estimated in the parametric analysis. However, to confirm
this assumption for future TMF raises and to evaluate the applicability of the
reinforcement parameters used in the stability analyses, it is recommended that sitespecific testing be performed. At a minimum, it is recommended that testing be
performed to evaluate the installation damage due to placement of the selected
geosynthetic under field-specific conditions (i.e. field-specific backfill, construction
equipment, etc.) and to evaluate the pull-out resistance parameters used.
As the placement of geosynthetic reinforcement in the Stage 4 raise is not required for
global stability of the upstream slope, this stage of construction represents an excellent
opportunity to perform testing to evaluate the selected reinforcement. In addition, a
variety of other samples could be tested during Stage 4, with the results used to optimize
the selection of reinforcement for future raises. It is recommended that the Engineer
work in conjunction with GFLCSA, the geosynthetic supplier, and a specialized
geosynthetic to develop the testing program.
Additional information regarding the proposed face reinforcement method, specifications
for the geosynthetic reinforcement, and recommended testing procedures is included in
the construction drawings and specifications located in Appendix I.
March 2010
8.0
REVIEW OF INDUSTRY PRACTICE
In addition to updating the strength parameters of the dam zones and performing
engineering analyses to evaluate the proposed dam configuration, a review of existing
rockfill dam case studies was performed. The purpose of this review was to evaluate
industry practice and the existence of a historical precedent for the downstream dam slope
proposed for this raise of the Cerro Corona TMF.
General information was compiled for a total of 131 dams that were constructed in
potentially seismic regions. Of the dams reviewed, all but two were concrete faced
rockfill dams (CFRD), with one being a geomembrane faced dam and another being a
rockfill dam with a central core. As the design seismic information was not readily
available for most of the dams reviewed, the peak ground accelerations (PGA) for each of
the dam sites were estimated utilizing the Global Seismic Hazard Program (GSHAP)
database (GSHAP, 1999) which contains PGA estimates for locations around the globe.
The coordinates of the identified dams were cross-referenced with the database to obtain
the estimated PGA values from the database. The PGA values contained in this database
represent an event with a 10% chance of occurrence in a 50 year period. While the PGA
values obtained do not necessarily represent design values for the dams, they do allow for
the consideration of the dams on a comparative basis. For reference, a PGA of 3.3 m/s2
was obtained for the Cerro Corona site from the GSHAP database.
A summary of the information obtained is presented in Table F.1 in Appendix F. In
general, the results of this review indicate the following:
There is a strong precedence for the construction of rockfill dams with

downstream slopes of 1.4H:1V or steeper in relatively seismic areas. Figure 14
presents a graphical comparison of the estimated site PGA values versus the
downstream slope for the dams reviewed. The Cerro Corona PGA estimate is
included in the figure for reference.
Of the 131 dams considered, 12 had PGAs in excess of the Cerro Corona site
value. Within this set of 12 high seismicity sites, downstream slopes ranging from
1.4H:1V to 1.6H:1V were observed. This indicates that the downstream slope
proposed in this report is within the range of previously constructed and
operational dams.
A number of large rockfill dams (in excess of 100 m) have been constructed with
downstream slopes of 1.4H:1V or steeper in relatively seismic areas. Figure 15
presents a graphical comparison of the dam height values versus the downstream
slope obtained as a part of this review. The ultimate height of the Cerro Corona
TMF dam, approximately 160 m, lies within the range of historically constructed
dams with downstream slopes of 1.4H:1V or steeper.
Further information regarding the rockfill, foundation, and construction procedures were
obtained for 11 dams, as limited detailed information was available for many of the dams
identified in the initial review. The detailed information obtained includes the foundation
geology and type; the rockfill type gradation and strength; the construction method (lift
thickness, compaction, and water placement); and the crest settlement observed in the
dam. All but two of the dams reviewed in this stage have downstream slopes of 1.4H:1V
March 2010
or steeper. A summary of the information obtained is included as Table F.2 in Appendix

F. The results of this detailed review are as follows:
A variety of rock types were used as rockfill sources, ranging from granite to
ignimbrite and tuff to limestone to gravels. The reported unconfined compressive
strengths of the rockfill ranged from 80 to 240 MPa. These values are in the
region of the results from testing performed on the rhyolite being sourced from the
site quarry which has been found to have an average unconfined compressive
strength on the order of 65 MPa.
The dams were generally constructed on rock foundations although some dams
were constructed partially over rivers with gravels comprising the foundation in
these locations.
The construction requirements that have been used to construct the TMF and are
proposed for future construction are similar to those reported for the reviewed
dams. In the dams reviewed, the maximum allowable rock size ranged from 600
to 3000 mm and the maximum allowable lift thicknesses ranged from 0.6 to 0.9
m. The project specifications for the Cerro Corona TMF call for a maximum rock
size of less than 920 mm (Zone 2B material) and a maximum allowable loose lift
thickness of 1 m.
Dams constructed prior to 1960 were constructed using dumped and sluiced
rockfill while more recent dams were compacted with smooth drum vibratory
rollers. More recent dams have been compacted with smooth drum vibratory
rollers ranging in size from 10 to 16 tonnes utilizing 4 to 8 passes per lift. Rockfill
compaction at the Cerro Corona TMF has been performed with 8 passes of a 19
tonne smooth drum vibratory roller.
Three of the dams reviewed have PGA values in excess or in close proximity to
the value estimated for the Cerro Corona site, Ishibuchi in Japan, Alto Anchicaya
in Colombia, and Aguamilpa in Mexico. Aguamilpa has the distinction of
currently being the worlds tallest operating CFRD dam. All four of these dams
were constructed with downstream slopes of 1.4H:1V and have been in operation
for a significant amount of time as they were constructed in 1953, 1974, and 1993,
respectively.
March 2010
9.0
9.1
CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY ESTIMATES
INTRODUCTION
Construction material quantity estimates were developed for the Stage 4 TMF raise and
for post-Stage 4 raises using Autodesk Land Desktop 2008 (Autodesk Software, 2008).
The following conditions and assumptions apply to the developed quantities:
All estimates are in terms of neat quantities with dam fill and excavation
quantities rounded up to the nearest hundred and reinforcement quantities rounded
up to the nearest ten. No wastage factors are applied.
The quantity estimates are based on the designs shown on the Construction
Drawings. Excavation and fill beyond the lines and grades shown on the
construction drawings may be required per the direction of the Engineer, which
will alter the accuracy of the listed quantities.
Estimates are only inclusive of quantities to construct the TMF dam and do not
include ancillary work such as the construction of access roads and staging areas.
All estimates are based on the assumed existing surface at the time of the specific
stage of construction. The existing surface is composed of the following:
o A survey provided to MWH by GFLCSA dated December 28, 2009. This
surface includes the record construction of the Stage 1 TMF (Las Gordas
Starter Dam to elevation 3720 masl) and the raise of the Las Gordas Dam to
elevation 3732 masl. This is in contrast to the record survey utilized to develop
the existing ground surface for the Stage 4 TMF Construction Drawings,
which was dated November 29, 2009.
o The proposed Stage 2 TMF (the construction of the Las Aguilas Starter Dam
to 3732 masl, the regrading of the La Jalca Tailing, and the construction of the
La Jalca Tailing bench) as presented in the design drawings developed by
MWH (2009a).
o The proposed Las Flacas Dam as presented in the design drawings developed
by MWH (2009c).
o Previous TMF dam raises, per the design presented in this report (for all postStage 4 dam construction quantity estimates).
Accordingly, the estimates do not account for any regrading of the existing Las Gordas
Dam surface to remove roadway wearing course, existing safety berms or other
deleterious material.
9.2
ESTIMATED STAGE 4 TMF RAISE CONSTRUCTION QUANTITIES
For the Stage 4 TMF, the estimated quantities were separated to represent the Las
Aguilas, Las Gordas, and La Hierba dam portions of the raise. As noted above, the
existing surface is based upon record survey information. Accordingly, the Stage 4
construction quantity estimates do not account for additional fill placement due to
removal of existing roadway wearing course, existing safety berms or other deleterious
material contained within the Las Gordas (Stage 3) record surface. Table 12 presents a
March 2010
summary of the estimated construction quantities for the Stage 4 TMF dam raise and the
assumptions related to the specific quantity items.
Table 12 Summary of Estimated Construction Quantities Stage 4 TMF Raise
ITEM
UNIT
Excavation
Total Fill Quantity
LAS AGUILAS
(3)
DAM
LAS GORDAS
(4)
DAM
LA HIERBA DAM
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
Excavation
3
N/A
(1)
N/A
(1)
23,600
(2)
23,600
Dam Fill
3
251,800
108,500
30,700
391,000
24,000
15,600
4,300
43,900
General Zone Quantities

Zone 1
Zone 2
29,400
26,200
2,600
58,200
Zone 2B (Upstream Fill)
73,200
12,500
13,900
99,600
Zone 2B (Downstream Fill)
89,000
30,000
N/A
119,000
Zone 3
9,100
6,500
1,300
16,900
9,200
6,400
1,100
16,700
17,900
11,300
7,500
36,700
N/A
4,840
Zone 4
Zone 5
Las Gordas Dam Upstream Face Reinforcement

Geosynthetic Tails
2
N/A
Gabion Length
N/A
Gabion Rockfill
Geosynthetic
4,840
(5)
Gabions
Gabion Area
N/A
N/A
2,420
N/A
2,420
(6)
N/A
2,420
(7)
N/A
9,680
2,420
9,680
Notes:
1. Foundation excavation for the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas dams has largely been completed with limited abutment
excavation expected to remain in order to complete Stage 4 TMF dam construction. Quantities have not been
estimated for this work.
2. The excavation volumes listed for the La Hierba Dam reflect the excavation plan shown on the Construction
Drawings, which assumes a 3 m excavation depth. The actual excavation depth may vary and will be determined by
the Engineer.
3. The Las Aguilas Dam construction quantities refer to the estimated construction quantities required to construct the
vertical raise portion of the main Stage 4 TMF.
4. The Las Gordas Dam construction quantities refer to the estimated construction quantities required to construct the
sloping raise portion of the main Stage 4 TMF.
5. The geosynthetic quantity listed represents the estimated area of geosynthetic required for placement of
geosynthetic tails within the reinforced portion of the upstream face of the main Stage 4 TMF. The quantity listed
assumes a full 1 m overlap of the geosynthetic and gabion, resulting in a total width of 2 m of geosynthetic for each
lift of geosynthetic reinforcement. The geosynthetic length was assumed equivalent to the gabion length.
6. The gabion quantity listed represents the estimated volume of rockfill required to construct the gabions along the
reinforced portion of the upstream face of the main Stage 4 TMF dam. The listed quantity is based on an
assumption of an average rockfill volume of 1 cubic meter per linear foot of gabion.
7. The gabion area represents the estimated area of welded wire mesh needed to construct the gabions for the
reinforced portion of the upstream face of the main Stage 4 TMF dam. The listed quantity is based on an
assumption of an average welded wire mesh area of 4 square meters per linear foot of gabion.
March 2010
9.3
ESTIMATED FUTURE TMF RAISE CONSTRUCTION QUANTITIES
Construction quantities were also estimated for stages 5 through 14 of the proposed future
TMF raises. Figures 15 and 17 present the estimated construction quantity versus dam
elevation curves for post-Stage 4 TMF dam construction. The quantities presented in the
graphs are cumulative and represent the estimated quantities required to construct Stage 5
through 14 of the TMF dam, per the conceptual level design concept presented in this
report. Table 13 presents a summary of the estimated construction quantities for the
future TMF dam raises and the assumptions related to the specific quantity items.
Table 13 Summary of Estimated Construction Quantities Future TMF Raises
7 (3758)
8 (3764)
9 (3770)
10 (3776)
11 (3782)
12 (3788)
13 (3794)
14 (3798)
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
(STAGES 5-14)
Excavation
6 (3752)
ITEM
5 (3746)
EMBANKMENT STAGE (CREST ELEVATION - MASL)
31,000
12,600
18,700
25,500
35,700
37,800
49,100
58,100
67,600
52,100
388,200
UNIT
2
Embankment Fill
Total Fill
Quantity
466,700 561,600 744,800 911,400 1,114,700 1,261,900 1,492,400 1,713,600 1,948,400 1,457,800
11,673,300
General Zone Quantities

Zone 1
45,500
45,000
49,500
52,000
58,900
54,000
61,500
65,400
69,600
51,800
553,200
58,500
60,500
68,300
74,100
80,700
83,900
90,100
95,100
100,000
69,700
780,900
65,400
59,500
50,600
42,600
51,500
24,100
40,000
46,200
56,000
59,000
494,900
Zone 2
Zone 2B
(Upstream Fill)
Zone 2B
(Downstream
Fill)
Zone 3
16,200
16,200
18,700
20,200
20,500
23,500
23,300
23,900
24,300
16,500
203,300
15,800
17,900
17,600
18,400
19,600
20,900
22,800
24,900
27,300
20,100
205,300
37,200
35,200
38,200
39,800
41,900
43,400
45,900
48,500
51,300
36,800
418,200
11,720
12,090
12,520
13,230
14,170
14,650
15,080
15,760
17,450
12,210
143,720
5,860
6,050
6,260
6,620
7,090
7,330
7,540
7,880
8,730
6,100
71,890
5,860
6,050
6,260
6,620
7,090
7,330
7,540
7,880
8,730
6,100
71,890
23,440
24,170
25,030
26,460
28,340
29.300
30,160
31,520
34,890
24,420
287,410
Zone 4
Zone 5
228,100 327,300 501,900 664,300 841,600 1,012,100 1,208,800 1,409,600 1,619,900 1,203,900
9,017,500
Upstream Face Reinforcement

Geosynthetic
Geosynthetic
Gabions
Gabion Length
Gabion Rockfill
Gabion Area
Notes:
1. The quantities listed are incremental.
2. The foundation excavation quantities listed represent the expected remaining foundation excavation, assuming a 3 m foundation
excavation depth. As much of the foundation excavation in the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas valleys has been completed, the listed
quantities represent the remaining work expected in the western portion of the TMF footprint, west of the Las Aguilas stream. The actual
excavation depth may vary and will be determined by the Engineer.
3. The geosynthetic quantity listed represents the estimated area of geosynthetic required for placement of geosynthetic tails within the
reinforced portion of the upstream face of the main Stage 4 TMF. The quantity listed assumes a full 1 m overlap of the geosynthetic and
gabion, resulting in a total width of 2 m of geosynthetic for each lift of geosynthetic reinforcement. The geosynthetic length was assumed
equivalent to the gabion length.
4. The gabion quantity listed represents the estimated volume of rockfill required to construct the gabions along the reinforced portion of the
upstream face of the main Stage 4 TMF dam. The listed quantity is based on an assumption of an average rockfill volume of 1 cubic meter
per linear foot of gabion.
5. The gabion area represents the estimated area of welded wire mesh needed to construct the gabions for the reinforced portion of the
upstream face of the main Stage 4 TMF dam. The listed quantity is based on an assumption of an average welded wire mesh area of 4
square meters per linear foot of gabion.
March 2010
10.0 CONCEPTUAL TAILING DEPOSITION PLANS AND ESTIMATED

TMF STORAGE CAPACITIES
10.1
INTRODUCTION
To aid in planning future mine operations and to aid in developing designs for the tailing
deposition and return water systems, conceptual level tailing deposition plans were
developed for the Cerro Corona TMF. Additionally, large strain consolidation modeling
and laboratory evaluations were performed to estimate the density of the deposited tailing
materials with time. Utilizing these plans and the estimated tailing densities, TMF
capacities were then estimated. This work was performed for the following five cases:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Elevation 3732 masl (Stage 3 TMF)

Elevation 3760 masl
Elevation 3780 masl
These elevations were selected to provide a general concept of the life of mine filling
plan. It is expected that additional filling plans will be developed as a part of the detailed
design for each stage.
The following conditions and assumptions apply to the tailing deposition plans and the
estimated TMF storage capacities:
The plans and capacity estimates are based on the TMF design as presented in this
report which assumes the use of the optimized centerline raise concept and an
ultimate embankment elevation of 3800 masl.
The plans and capacity estimates are based on the assumed existing ground
surface at the time of each stage of TMF. The existing surface is composed of the
following:
o A survey provided to MWH by GFLCSA dated December 28, 2009. This
surface includes the record construction of the Stage 1 TMF (Las Gordas
Starter Dam to elevation 3720 masl) and the raise of the Las Gordas Dam to
elevation 3732 masl. This is in contrast to the record survey utilized to develop
the existing ground surface for the Stage 4 TMF Construction Drawings,
which was dated November 29, 2009.
o The proposed Stage 2 TMF (the construction of the Las Aguilas Starter Dam
to 3732 masl, the regrading of the La Jalca Tailing, and the construction of the
La Jalca Tailing bench) as presented in the design drawings developed by
MWH (2009a).
o The proposed Las Flacas Dam as presented in the design drawings developed
by MWH (2009c).
o Preliminary designs for the UCB that extend across the entire rhyolite quarry
to elevation 3800 masl.
o The final rhyolite quarry configuration that extends to a final depth of 3713
masl.
March 2010
A minimum freeboard of 2 m (considering the volume of the extra fine tailing,

normal operating pond and PMF) for tailing deposition plans developed to model
post Stage 4 conditions. For the prior TMF filling stages (elevation 3732 and
3740 masl where the surface area of the TMF is smaller) a freeboard of less than
2 m was used. This will be mitigated during operations by constructing berms
around the TMF to achieve the required freeboard.
An extra fine tailing (EFT) volume of 500,000 m3 (modeled as water).
A clear water pond volume of 1,000,000 m3.
A PMF storage volume of 1,000,000 m3.
10.2
TAILING DEPOSITION PLANS
Tailing deposition plans were developed for the five cases noted above. These plans
present the desired tailing contours and the estimated tailing delivery spigot points needed
to achieve the configurations shown. Additionally, the plans present the estimated bounds
of the extra fine tailing material and clear water pond and the estimated minimum and
maximum water level locations of the return water barge(s). Drawings presenting the
deposition plans, showing the location of the EFT, clear water pond, tailing contours,
return water barge location(s) and tailing deposition locations are included along with
capacity estimates and stage storage curves in Appendix G.
The tailing deposition plans were developed with the following general objectives:
Maximize the available storage capacity of the TMF

Minimize the formation of localized water ponds
Maintain the clear water pond and EFT material as far from the TMF dam as
practical
Allow for the use of practical tailing delivery and return water systems
Rift TD (Rift Software, 2009) was used to develop the tailing deposition plans. Rift TD is
a three-dimensional Digital Terrain Model specifically developed to model tailing
deposition. The tailing deposition plans developed indicate the preferred tailing beach
configuration, clear water pond and EFT material location, and the estimated location of
tailing spigots around the facility required to achieve them. A brief description of the
results of the proposed tailing deposition plans for each of the five cases considered is as
follows:
1. Elevation 3732 masl (Stage 3 TMF) This plan represents the desired TMF
layout at the completion of filling of the Stage 3 TMF. EFT areas are located
along the southern part of the TMF, including localized areas in the southeastern
portion of the TMF. It is expected that trenching will be required to extend the
clear water pond into the southern extents of the Las Aguilas portion of the TMF,
as shown on Drawing 3, included in Appendix G. Tailing deposition is
performed from a spigot line located along the crest of the TMF dam and from a
spigot point located at the rhyolite quarry.
2. Elevation 3740 masl (Stage 4 TMF) For Stage 4 TMF filling, it is proposed
that tailing deposition be performed from a spigot line located along the crest of
March 2010
the Stage 4 TMF dam (spanning the La Hierba, Las Aguilas and Las Gordas
valleys) and from a spigot point located in the rhyolite quarry. This deposition
concept results in a beach forming along the dam axis and the formation of two
separate EFT areas in the southern extents of the Las Aguilas and Las Gordas
portions of the TMF with return water barges located in either one or both areas.
3. Elevation 3760 masl At this elevation, the tailing deposition line is extended
along the crest of the dam and spigot points are added in the rhyolite quarry area
and on the eastern side of the TMF along the UCB. This deposition concept
continues to push the clear water pond and the EFT zones away from the
embankment into the southern portion of the TMF.
4. Elevation 3780 masl At this elevation, tailing deposition continues along the
crest of the dam and spiggoting is performed in the eastern portion of the TMF
along the UCB. The clear water pond and EFT zones are pushed even farther to
the southern portion of the TMF. The EFT material consolidates into one area in
the Chorro Valley area (south central area) of the TMF with one barge expected to
be needed for pumping of return water.
5. Elevation 3800 masl For the final TMF configuration, three tailing deposition
options were developed. For all three options, a tailing delivery line runs across
the entire ultimate embankment and along a portion of the UCB. Differences in
the contours and estimated capacities are due to variations in spigot placement at
the rhyolite quarry, the Chorro Valley in the southern portion of the TMF, and the
Tomas spigot point in the southwestern portion of the TMF. The following is a
brief summary of the three cases considered:
o Option A Option A represents the median case in terms of capacity and
distance from the clear water pond to the dam of the three cases
considered. As presented in Drawing 11 located in Appendix G,
spiggoting is performed from the UCB, the Chorro valley and the rhyolite
quarry.
o Option B In this option, spiggoting is performed from the UCB, the
rhyolite quarry, and the Tomas spigot point. This configuration provides
the smallest capacity of the three cases considered but also the largest
distance from the clear water pond to the TMF dam. A plan view of
Option B is presented in Drawing 13 located in Appendix G.
o Option C Option C represents the configuration with the largest capacity
of the three considered but provides the shortest distance between the dam
crest and the PMF. As presented in Drawing 15, located in Appendix G,
spiggoting is performed from the UCB, the rhyolite quarry, the Tomas
spigot point, and the Chorro Valley.
10.3
LARGE STRAIN CONSOLIDATION MODELING
Large strain consolidation modeling was performed at the University of Colorado at

Boulder to estimate the consolidation of the tailing material within the impoundment
during operation of the facility and after closure. The modeling was used to estimate the
density of the tailing deposited within the facility with time, and accounts for the
impoundment filling rate, the tailing properties, and impoundment geometry. The results
March 2010
of large strain consolidation modeling were used in conjunction with the tailing
deposition plans described above to estimate the capacity of the TMF.
Large strain consolidation describes consolidation problems which involve large strains
and nonlinear soil properties. Compressibility and permeability functions were input into
the large strain consolidation model to characterize the behavior of the tailing material
during consolidation. These functions were determined based on seepage induced
consolidation testing (SICTA) performed at the University of Colorado at Boulder on
samples obtained from the site.
The large strain consolidation modeling was performed using stage storage data provided
by MWH and an impoundment filling schedule based on the tailing deposition rates to
date and an assumed tailing deposition rate of 17,000 tonnes per day (t/d) for all future
tailing deposition. The large strain consolidation model used was developed at the
University of Colorado at Boulder and produces both upper bound and lower bound
solutions. The lower bound conservative represents an approximation of the exact
solution as it accounts for stiffness of the side slopes of the impoundment. The upper
bound solution overestimates the capacity of the impoundment as it assumes that the
impoundment side slopes consolidate to the same extent as the deposited tailing.
Accordingly, the densities estimated in the lower bound were used as inputs to estimate
the capacities of the TMF. A summary of the results of large strain consolidation
modeling is as follows:
The modeled density after 550 days is approximately 1 t/m3. This corresponds
well with the estimated current density based on bathymetry survey number 14
and the results of the water balance (dated February 16, 2010), which indicate an
average tailing density of 1.1 t/m3.
The modeling estimates a life of mine tailing density (average tailing density at
the end of filling of the TMF) of 1.37 t/m3.
Additional information regarding the laboratory testing and large strain consolidation
modeling is included in Appendix H.
10.4
ESTIMATED TMF CAPACITIES
Utilizing the tailing deposition plans and the estimated tailing densities with time, TMF
capacities were estimated for the five cases listed above. Table 14 presents a summary of
the estimated TMF tailing capacities for the final four cases evaluated based on the tailing
deposition plans and large strain consolidation modeling noted above and includes a
comparison to previously estimated TMF capacities. The ultimate dam capacity presented
is based on the Option C tailing deposition plan.
March 2010
Table 14 Summary of Estimated TMF Capacities

DAM CREST
ELEVATION
(masl)
TAILING
STORAGE
CAPACITY
3
(Mm )
MAXIMUM
POND
CAPACITY
3
(Mm )
TOTAL STRUCK
CAPACITY
3
(Mm )
PREVIOUSLY
ESTIMATED STRUCK
1
CAPACITY
3
(Mm )
DIFFERENCE
IN STRUCK
CAPACITY
3
(Mm )
3740
15.3
2.0
17.3
16.7
0.6
3760
28.9
3.1
32.0
30.7
1.3
3780
47.4
4.7
52.1
49.9
-2.2
3800
72.9
4.4
77.3
74.0
3.3
Note:
1. The previously estimated TMF capacities are based on the Starter Dam design developed by MWH and represent
the estimated TMF capacities assuming a centerline embankment raise concept from elevation 3720 masl and
above and a rhyolite quarry configuration that extends to a bottom elevation of 3740 masl.
As seen above, the estimated ultimate tailing capacity of the TMF per the current TMF
dam and rhyolite quarry layout is approximately 72.9 Mm3. This results in an estimated
total capacity of approximately 100 million tonnes (Mt), considering the estimated life of
mine average tailing density of 1.37 t/m3. Note that this value is an estimate based upon
the assumptions listed in the sections above. Any variations in the assumed values,
properties, and conditions should be reviewed to evaluate their effect on the estimated
quantities presented above.
As seen in Table 14, the estimated capacity of the ultimate TMF per the currently
proposed design is approximately 3.3 million cubic meters more than the previously
estimated ultimate TMF quantity. The increase in the estimated ultimate TMF capacity
can be attributed to two factors, the revised dam design and the increased depth of the
rhyolite quarry. Table 15 presents the results of an evaluation that was performed to
identify the individual contribution of these two factors in the increase of the estimated
capacity.
Table 15 Contribution of Design Changes to Capacity Increase
DIFFERENCE
Difference between Current and Previously Estimated Ultimate TMF Capacity
Difference Due to Revised Dam Design
Difference Due to Deeper Rhyolite Quarry
VOLUME
3
(Mm )
3.3
1.4
1.9
%
DIFFERENCE
42
58
Additional information regarding the estimated TMF capacities is included in

Appendix G.
March 2010
11.0 REFERENCES
Autodesk Software, 2008. Autodesk Land Desktop 2008. San Rafael, California, USA.
Breitenbach, A.J. Part 2 History of Rockfill Dam Construction, Downloaded on
December 10, 2009 from
http://www.vectoreng.com/content/Document/pdf/papers/Rockfill_Guidelines_Part_2__History_of_Rockfill_Dam_Construction.pdf
Dai. Z.J. et al., 2008. Geogrid Reinforcement on High Embankment/Slope Application
in Jinping Power Station Project, Proceedings of the 4th Annual Regional
Conference on Geosynthetics, pp. 775-779, Shanghai, China, June 17-20.
Day, R.W., 2000. Geotechnical Engineers Portable Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New
York, USA. pp. 4-10. 2000.
FHWA, 2001. Elias, V., Christopher, B.R., Berg. R.P., Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines, Federal
Highway Administration, FHWA-NHI-00-043, March, 2001.
GEO-SLOPE International, LTD. (GEO-SLOPE), 2009a. SEEP/W, Version 7.15.
GEO-SLOPE International, LTD, (GEO-SLOPE), 2009b. SLOPE/W, Version 7.15.
Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP), 1999. The GSHAP Global
Seismic Hazard Map. Compiled in 1999. Downloaded on October 15, 2009 from
http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/gshap/global/caution.html
Ground Water International (GWI), 2009. Cerro Corona Project Karst
Hydrogeology Study, Gold Fields La Cima S.A. March 2009.
Hufenus, et al., 2005. Huefenus, R., et al., Strength Reduction Factors Due to Installation
Damage of Reinforcing Geosynthetics, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 23, pp
401-424. 2005.
Hy-Ten Gabion Solutions. Welded Mesh Gabions Retaining Wall Design Guide, pp.
8.
Itasca, 2010. FLAC, Version 6.0.395.
March 2010
Knight Piesold (KP), 2006. Mine Waste and Associated Water Management
Facilities Report on Design, Final report prepared for Gold Fields La Cima S.A.
January 18, 2006.
Leps, T.M., 1970. Review of Shearing Strength of Rockfill, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, SM4, p. 1159-1170. 1970.
Modular Gabion Systems (MGS). Technical Information Welded Mesh Versus
Twisted Mesh, Downloaded on February 9, 2010 from
http://www.gabions.net/welded_mesh.html
Morgenstern, N.R., and Price, V.E. (1965). The Analysis of the Stability of General Slip
Surfaces. Geotechnique, Vol. 15, pp. 79-93. 1965.
MWH, 2008. Cerro Corona Project Tailing Management Facility Starter Dam (3720m)
Design Report, Final Design Report Prepared for Gold Fields La Cima S.A.
November, 2008.
MWH, 2009a. Final Design Drawings Cerro Corona TMF Dams Construction to EL.
3732, Revision 0 Issued for Construction, Construction Drawings Prepared for
Gold Fields La Cima S.A. April, 2009.
MWH, 2009b. TMF Dam Raise Slope Reinforcement Update, Field Instruction from
Pat Corser of MWH to Javier Gutierrez, Carlos Herrera, and Alberto Cardenas of
Gold Fields La Cima S.A. July 13, 2009.
MWH, 2009c. Modification Design Drawings Cerro Corona TMF Flacas Dam
Construction to EL. 3732 Stations 0+050 to 0+340, Revision 0 Issued for
Construction, Construction Drawings Prepared for Gold Fields La Cima S.A. October,
2009.
MWH, 2009d. Las Gordas Data Summary, Memorandum from Pat Corser of MWH to
Javier Gutierrez of GFLCSA. December 15, 2009.
MWH, 2009e. TMF Dam Raise to El. 3740 Stability Analysis, Document Number:
1004923-20090603-RA-TMFDAMRAISESTABANALYSIS (REV E), Revision E.
August 4, 2009.
MWH, 2010a. Cerro Corona Seepage Analysis Evaluation of Zone 3 and 4
Permeability and Discharge Capacity, Calculation Brief, Revision E. Revised March
2, 2010.
MWH, 2010b. Sizing of Gabions for Surficial Slope Stability, Calculation Brief,
Revision B. Revised March 2, 2010.
Rift Software, 2009. Rift TD, Version 1.2.3.11. White Gum Valley, Western Australia,
Australia.
Ten Cate, 2002. Facing Options for Reinforced Steepend Slopes, Ten Cate Nicholon.
April 1, 2002.
March 2010
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2008. Wire Mesh Gabions and
Mattresses, Unified Facilities Guide Specifications, Division 31 Earthwork,
Section 31 36 00. August, 2008.
United States Forest Service (USFS), 1994. Mohoney, J. et al. Retaining Wall Design
Guide, USDA Forest Service, 1994.
URS, 2007. Cerro Corona Ground Motion Report. July 14, 2007.
Water Management Consultants (WMC), 2005. 24-hr PMF Volume at the Cerro Corona
Tailings Facility, Memorandum from Enrique Buschiazzo of WMC to Frits Reidel.
December 2, 2005.
Water Management Consultants (WMC), 2006. Preliminary Surface Water Diversions,
Memorandum from Anne Rotter of WMC to John Naisbitt. January 12, 2006.
Water Management Consultants (WMC), 2008. Groundwater Flow Model for the Cerro
Corona Project Area, Draft Report Prepared for Gold Fields La Cima S.A. March,
2008.
3000
2500
ShearStress(kPa)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
NormalStress(kPa)
2500
3000
3500
4000
PGA(m/s2 )1
CerroCoronaPGA(3.3m/s2)
0
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
DownstreamSlope(perverticalunitofslope)
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
300
250
DamHeight(m)
200
150
100
50
0
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
DownstreamSlope(perverticalunitofslope)
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00

Cerro Corona Relavera

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Cerro Corona Relavera

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Prepared forr:

Gold Fields Lim

DESIGN STEWARDSHIP, OBJECTIVES, CRITERIA, AND BASIS ................... 7

GENERAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................. 12

DESCRIPTION OF THE STAGE 4 TMF RAISE ................................................... 18

PROPOSED FUTURE TMF RAISES ....................................................................... 20

PROPOSED TMF CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE................................................................... 20

UPDATED MATERIAL PROPERTIES .................................................................. 24

ENGINEERING ANALYSES .................................................................................... 28

REVIEW OF INDUSTRY PRACTICE .................................................................... 46

CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY ESTIMATES ........................................................ 48

CONCEPTUAL TAILING DEPOSITION PLANS AND ESTIMATED TMF

CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS

Canadian Dam Association

Stage 1 Construct a starter dam to an elevation of 3720 masl in the Quebrada

Stage 2 Construction of Stage 2 was sequenced to immediately follow Stage 1.

Stage 1 (Constructed) Construction of the Las Gordas Starter Dam to an

Stage 2 (Under Construction) Construction of the Las Aguilas Starter Dam to

Stage 3 (Constructed) Stage 3 construction includes the raising of the Las

Stage 4 (Proposed) After completion of Stage 2 and 3 TMF construction, both

MWH SCOPE OF WORK

Investigation and evaluation of geotechnical properties of the deposited tailing

Development of a conceptual level TMF dam construction schedule to estimate

Review and refinement of the dam material properties utilized in previous

Completion of engineering analyses and a review of industry practice to support

Development of a detailed design complete with construction quantity estimates,

Development of conceptual level designs to construct the TMF to its ultimate

Development of conceptual level tailing deposition plans and capacity estimates

Ancillary Construction The construction of complementary items such as

DESIGN STEWARDSHIP, OBJECTIVES, CRITERIA,

The owner will prepare an operating strategy, operating manual, operating

The owner will establish and maintain an independent review board of

independent review board or the engineer of record, may be considered a

Design and construct the TMF in accordance with internationally recognized

Ministerial Resolution No. 0.5-95-EM-DGAA Governing the Design and

Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Studies for Mineral Tailing (1995).

Mine Closure Regulations (2003).

Canadian Dam Safety Guidelines

Nevada Division of Water Resources Regulating and Permitting Guidelines

Mining Association of Canada Tailing Management Guidelines

International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) Guidelines

Facility Hazard Category

High Nevada Division of Water Resources

Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE)

Flood volume resulting from occurrence of the 24-hr PMP event

Facility Configuration and Construction

Store tailing, maximum estimated reclaim pond volume, and

USACE Stability Recommendations

CDA Dam Safety Guidelines

900 km NNW of Lima, Peru

3500 to 4000 masl

Wet Season - October through March

Dry Season - April through September

Minimum Design Temperature

Maximum Design Temperature

Minimum Design Humidity

Maximum Design Humidity

Minimum Annual Design Precipitation

Maximum Annual Design Precipitation

Maximum Design Wind Speed

Prevailing Wind Direction

0.24g (1/500 yr)

Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE)

None Based on Deformations