Laserfiche WebLink
Trapper Mining, Inc. <br />C- 1981 -010; PR7 <br />Adequacy Review No. 2 <br />Page 10 of 15 <br />obtain approval for and construct appropriate sediment control for all areas proposed to be disturbed. <br />Trapper will need to provide the required design information for sediment control measures to be used for <br />proposed disturbance east of Deal, Middle, East Flume, and East Middle Flume watersheds. There is <br />currently a stipulation in place to this effect from Permit Renewal No. 6. Trapper should be aware that <br />prior to any disturbance in the expansion area, including the construction of sediment control facilities, <br />the baseline information required from Rule 2.04; as discusses above, must be submitted and approved by <br />the Division. <br />a. Trapper's Response: Trapper will submit the requested innfonmatioui prior to army ununing uun the <br />penmt expamwi i area. <br />b. Division's Response: The stipulation from Permit Renewal No. 6 will remain in effect. <br />Appendix A; Bond Estimate: <br />The Division has reviewed the cost estimate submitted and it appears to account for the worst case disturbance for <br />the next permit term. However, the estimate does not appear to take into account disturbance areas that have not <br />been bond released. The Division cannot release liability associated with disturbed areas through the permit revision <br />process. <br />25. The cost estimate provided by Trapper is broken up into reclamation tasks generally associated with a <br />particular pit area (Ash Pit, DIE Pit, K/Gd Pit etc.). The Division could not locate a specific map which <br />depicts the boundaries of these pit areas and their associated disturbance. Given this, it is difficult to verifi- <br />disturbance acreages for a given pit. Since these pits designations are cited throughout the permit and used <br />for cost estimate, please submit a map which depicts the disturbance area and the boundaries of each of <br />designated pit areas. <br />a. Trapper's Response: A nievv map (map M4A) is enclosed which depicts the areas of disturbance <br />and the boundaries for each of the pits. <br />b. Division's Response: This item is resolved. <br />26. In addition to item 20 above, it may also be helpful to include an additional table in the bonding section <br />which lists each of the pit areas and their associated total disturbed acreages and the acreages that have been <br />Phase I, II and III bond released. <br />a. Trapper's Response: As per the meeting o�i November l2, 2013 (and subsequent meetings <br />discussions) 61 which Trapper met vv uth the Divisio�i to discuss the Phase Bond Release process as it <br />pertains to the PR7 Worst Case Year Perfo-ana�ice Bond, the addutio�iall table is Rio longer relevant <br />and therefore has riot bee�i 6icluded with this response. <br />b. Division's Response: This item is resolved. <br />27. The cost estimate for regarding the Ash Pit does not include portions of Parcels A -B -10 and A -B -12 which <br />have not received Phase I bond release. The Division cannot release liability associated with backfilling and <br />grading through the permit revision. Given this, please revise the cost estimate associated with the Ash pit <br />disturbance to account for the pit area that has not been granted Phase I bond release. <br />a. Trapper's Response: With the approval of SL- 14 and SL- 15 Phase I Bond Release areas, mau -v of <br />the issues addressed un this, and succeeding Adequacy- Rev uevv # 1 items lliave bee�i addressed. 1n <br />additioni, as per the meeting o�i November 12, 2015, the issues regarding the release of liability <br />associated vv ith the Phase Bond Release process as it relates to the PR7 Permit Revisioui were also <br />addressed. <br />