Laserfiche WebLink
TR -115 Response 2 Cont. <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />1.4. Based on the information in comment #1.3 above. A revised design for the East Flume <br />Pond which would include the Deacon/Jeffway Diversion run-off, was not included in the <br />TRI 15 submittal. In order to ensure that the East Flume Pond will have the adequate <br />capacity to contain and treat the run-off or inflow entering the pond, the East Flume Pond <br />design must include the additional inflow resulting from the 83.78 acres of run-off from <br />the deal diversion. Please submit a revised East Flume Pond design that includes the <br />additional inflow as a result of the Deacon/Jeffway Diversion SEDCAD model or <br />provide the Division with a justification that the current design is adequate. <br />Trapper Response: Items 1.3 and 1.4, the ponds incorporated in this design are <br />both less than ? acre.ft. in capacity and Will he treated in correspondence with <br />guidelines Trapper./bllows in the creation of dozer- basins. These structures <br />are merely in place to "check " peak.flow velocity. This diversion will be <br />discharging to East Ashmore pit which has a large excess of capacity and is more <br />than capable of handling this discharge. Diversion discharge will not he routed <br />through East Flume pond until it is discharged from East Ashmore Pit through pit <br />pumping actil,ities as needed. <br />1.5. Trapper provided a design for two diversion ditches; the Deal diversion and <br />Deacon/Jeffway diversion. Trapper did not update the reclamation cost estimate to <br />account for the reclamation of this diversion. The enclosed cost estimate includes a cost <br />to reclaim the diversion ditches based on the design of the ditches supplied and the <br />M51 map. <br />Trapper Response: The provided Circes costs were adequate and accepted hl• <br />Trapper. <br />The topsoil stripping areas shown in TRI 15 do not coincide with the areas presented in <br />the 2015 ARR (TR116) for proposed 2016 stripping areas. Please resolve this <br />inconsistency with the most accurate information. <br />Trapper Response: Following discussion with DRMS, TMI provided drafts of maps IOB <br />and the 2105 annual reclamation report map provided in TR 116. <br />DRMS Response: The Division accepts these drafts and requests Trapper provide those maps as <br />part of the response to this adequacy review. <br />Trapper Response: The reriscd map is included with this suhinission. Rct•ised material <br />for TRI 1(,IRR wil/ he prol•ided under separate c•ol•er. <br />The topsoil stripping and replacement plan shown on the TR 115, M1OB Sheet 3 map <br />does not appear to be consistent with the topsoil replacement that has occurred for 2014 <br />and 2015, nor what is projected to be replaced in 2016. Also the 2015 Annual <br />Reclamation Report Map depicts a proposed topsoil stripping parcel for 2016 that is <br />within portions of the 2016 parcel and portions of the proposed 2017 topsoil stripping <br />