My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-05-18_REVISION - C1981010 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981010
>
2018-05-18_REVISION - C1981010 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/21/2018 9:49:07 AM
Creation date
5/21/2018 9:02:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981010
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/18/2018
Doc Name
Adequacy Review - Preliminary
From
Trapper Mining Inc
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
PR9
Email Name
RAR
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Nighthawk (N) Pit and Lancaster (L) Pit, and Map M14A provided the various cross <br />section diagrams for N and L pits. <br />21. Please provide cross section drawings for the excess spoil that will be placed along <br />the Utility Waste area. <br />It appears that TMI considers overburden from the box cut at Nighthawk Pit as <br />"excess spoil". <br />22. Please consider and discuss the possibility of utilizing this material to mitigate the <br />pre and post mining elevation difference in L pit cross section E1,441,000, rather <br />than creating excess spoil. (See adequacy question 20, below.) <br />23. Please, also provide the following specific cross section drawings for Nighthawk pit: <br />a. At E1,426,000 <br />b. At N409,000, across the middle of N pit <br />DRMS notes that on map M14A for the Lancaster Pit, the proposed elevation delta <br />when compared to the post mining M12 map is approximately 200 feet. This <br />appears to be a significant change in elevation. <br />24. For the Lancaster Pit, at cross section E1,441,000 please explain why the post <br />mining topography proposed is 200 feet lower than the topography of the October <br />2016 survey and map (M3). <br />25. For the Lancaster Pit, please provide the following cross sections at: <br />a. N402,000 <br />b. N404,000 <br />c. N406,000 <br />As per Rule 2.05.3(6)(b), plans must describe the geotechnical investigation associated with <br />the disposal area. After reviewing the proposed changes as well as the currently approved <br />Trapper PAP, DRMS was unable to locate any geotechnical investigation for the proposed <br />excess spoil area at the Utility Waste Disposal area. <br />26. Please provide results of a geotechnical investigation of the proposed disposal site <br />along the utility waste disposal area. <br />27. Please describe and provide a diagram of runoff routing and indicate the receiving <br />water body for runoff emanating from the utility waste disposal area. <br />28. With respect to revised page 3-15a paragraph 6, please discuss why language was <br />removed regarding placement of spoil as a buttress to the North of K pit as per AAI <br />recommendation? It seems to be pertinent information to the description of spoil <br />disposal as per Rule 2.05.3 (6)b. <br />This is a review of the reclamation plan to achieve post mining land use. Map <br />series M10A provides the mining and regrade time table for the five year permit <br />Trapper PR9 Preliminary Adequacy Prepared by: R. Reilley, GISP, M.S. Page 7 <br />Date: May 2018 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.