Laserfiche WebLink
Trapper Mining, Inc. <br />C- 1981 -010; PR7 <br />Adequacy Review No. 2 <br />Page 14 of 15 <br />b. Division's Response: The Division is conducting a cost estimate based on our November 12, 2013 <br />meeting and the subsequent approvals of the SL 14 and SL 15 bond release applications as well as <br />the information provided in the adequacy review response. There was a glitch in the CIRCES <br />system when the cost estimate was conducted for RN -06 that I was not aware of until Trapper <br />pointed out this discrepancy. The su>mnary cost sheet will be reviewed to verifi- cost transferred <br />correctly from the individual task worksheets. <br />34. Deal Pond is required to be reclaimed. Please update Table A -7.1 and Table A -7.2 to account for the Deal <br />Pond regrade costs. <br />a. Trapper's Response: Deal pound was constructed after- TR -94 was approved. Tlis Teclluuicall <br />Revisioun, made applications for the abanndouuunent of a unuunnber of impouundments for the purposes of <br />livestock annd «illdlife use. Deal pound was iustennded to be considered for abanndouuunent as well but <br />was never requested for this status through a Teclunicall Revisions. This resulted ins it being <br />iusadverteustll overlooked ins PR6 avid was unot carried forward innto PR7. This oe ersiglnt leas beeps <br />corrected annd the reclamatious volume annd cost for this impounnndmennt leas beeps inncluded ins tables A- <br />7.1 annd A -7.2 as requested. <br />b. Division's Response: Thank you for providing this information, the Division is conducting a cost <br />estimate based on the updated information submitted. <br />35. The Division's copy of the revision is missing the Talpac results for stockpile A96 -1A. The Division needs <br />the road haul segment grade and length in order to complete the cost estimate. <br />a. Trapper's Response: Tlne Tallpac results for stockpile A96 -fA «ere insadverteustlly left out inn tle <br />onginall PR7 submittal, TlneY are eunclosed. <br />b. Division's Response: Thank you for providing this information, the Division is conducting a cost <br />estimate based on the updated information submitted. <br />36. The demolition cost estimate provided in Appendix A, Table A -12.1 is missing the cost to demolish the <br />Carpenter Shop. Please update the estimate to account for this cost. <br />a. Trapper's Response: Tlne Carpenter's sloop was demolisllned inn tle summer of 2012 annd the cost <br />associated with this structure leas allreadv beeps absorbed by Trapper annd was removed from the <br />Demolitions sections (Table A- 12.1). <br />b. Division's Response: This item is resolved. <br />37. Proposed Table A -13.6 provides a cost to seal the landslide monitoring stations. This table only provides a <br />cost for monitoring stations 7 and 8. Two additional stations are included in the monitoring program as <br />discussed on revised page 3 -27b stations 5 and 6. Please update this table to include the cost to seal these <br />two monitoring stations. <br />a. Trapper's Response: Tlne costs for sealnig ously stations 7 annd 8 inn Table A -13 A as submitted inn <br />PRT are correct. Stations 1 through 6 leave beeps removed from tle pit area_ Tlis conncern is <br />addressed ono page 3 -27b render item # 20 above. <br />b. Division's Response: This item is resolved. <br />38. It is difficult to verifi- and complete the cost estimate for topsoiling and revegetating certain pit areas for the <br />reasons discussed in Items 25 and 26 above. The Division cannot release liability for disturbance that has <br />occurred but has not been phase bond released. Please verifi- the volumes and acreages for each topsoiling <br />