2014-01-28_REVISION - C1981010 (2)

Home Browse Search

have received Phase I bond release. Give this; please explain this significant reduction in material volume. Trapper Response to Comment 33: As per the meeting on November 12, 2013, the issues regarding the release of liability associated with the Phase Bond Release process as it relates to the PR7 permit revision were addressed (see item # 27 response). At the time that PR6 was submitted (2007), approximately 5.6 million cubic yards of material was estimated to be hauled back from the Horse Gulch Fill (task # 25 in the Bond estimate) to assist with the backfill of K pit by the truck/loader operation. After the PR6 submittal and the performance bond was estimated, a number of changes were made that impacted the design, volumes, and methods of backfill in K pit. Less out of pit spoil was allowed to be placed in the Horse Gulch Fill (25 million cyds vs. 35 million applied for). In addition, Atapito & Associates changed their recommendation on the buttress fill on the north limits of K pit by no longer requiring a buttress at all. This further reduced available dump room. Trapper then hauled approximately 7 million cyds of material from K pit to F pit for final pit backfill there. This still resulted in over 3 millio i cyds of material remaining that would have to be hauled somewhere else. To address this issue, a plan was developed to allow the dragline operation to remove the M seam and Q seam interburdens (that were previously planned to be removed by the truck/loader operation and taken to the Horse Gulch Fill) and to place more material "in pit ". Note: There is a discrepancy between the item #25 on the summary page ($7,872,034.99) of the RN -06 Circes run and the item # 25 worksheet amount ($7,032,148.28). 34. Deal Pond is required to be reclaimed. Please update Table A -7.1 and Table A -7.2 to account for the Deal Pond regrade costs. Trapper Response to Comment 34: Deal pond was constructed after TR -94 was approved. This Technical Revision, made 4pplication for the abandonment of a number of impoundments for the purposes of livestock and wildlife use. Deal pond was intended to be considered for abandonment as well but was never requested for this status through a Technical Revision. This resulted in it being inadvertently overlooked in PR6 and was not carried forward into PR7. This oversight has been corrected and the reclamation volume and cost for this impoundment has been included in tables A -7.1 and A -7.2 as requested. 35. The Division's copy of the revision is missing the Talpac results for stockpile A96 -IA. The Division needs the road haul segment grade and length in order to complete the cost estimate. Trapper Responst to Comment 35: The Talpac results for stockpile A96 -1A were inadvertently left out in the original PR7 submittal. They are enclosed. 36. The demolition cost estimate provided in Appendix A, Table A -12.1 is missing the cost to demolish the Carpenter Shop. Please update the estimate to account for this cost. Trapper Response to Comment 36: The Carpenter's shop was demolished in the summer of 2012 and the cost associated with this structure has already been absorbed by Trapper and was removed from the Demolition section (Table A- 12.1). 37. Proposed Table A -13.6 provides a cost to seal the landslide monitoring stations. This table only provides a cost for monitoring stations 7 and 8. Two additional stations are included in the