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
Rule: 2.05.2 (1), (2) Operational Plan <br />This is a review of TMI's operational plan for the next 5 years. This section of the <br />rules is addressed in TMI's permit section 3.0 and map series M10, comprising a <br />review of revised pages Section 3, Project Plan pgs. 3-11 through 3-183 <br />The above rule is adequately addressed. <br />Rule: 2.05.3 (1), (2a) <br />DRMS understands from revised page 3-15a that future development in the Ithaca <br />Pit Mining Area (I pit), is under consideration. M4 depicts both an I pit and a J pit. <br />There is no discussion of the J pit in the revised pages as submitted. <br />11. Please update the narrative to include discussion of the J pit and resubmit <br />associated revised pages. <br />DRMS notes that revised page 3-40b references reclamation proposed to take place <br />at the current topsoil pile located at Horse Gulch Fill. And, that this reclamation <br />once completed would reduce the inspection interval for the fill. <br />12. Please discuss the reclamation to be carried out specifically addressing the topsoil <br />pile; will the soil be utilized somewhere or remain in place? <br />13. As changes to fill inspection intervals require DRMs approval, please update the <br />text on page 3-40b to incorporate: ...go to once a year "once approved by the <br />Division" and will take place... <br />Rule: 2.05.3 (3) (a-cl Mine facilities <br />The above rule is adequately addressed. <br />Rule: 2.05.3 (4) <br />This is a review of the design plans submitted for sediment ponds. The above rule <br />is adequately addressed with the exception of: As built designs for the 12 ponds. <br />Many of these design drawings were illegible, the font was less than 10 point and in <br />some cases no elevations were called out on contour maps. Specific designs that <br />were problematic comprise: <br />Johnson System, Middle Pyeatt System, No Name System, and Ute Pond. <br />Ute Pond had no elevations called out on the plan view. As the Middle Pyeatt <br />system may receive runoff from the disturbed area associated with the <br />development of Nighthawk Pit, DRMS requests as built design drawings meeting <br />that are legible and have the information needed in order to do an adequate <br />review. DRMS is not able to verify the inputs used for the sedcad runs associated <br />with Middle and East Pyeatt systems and performed in 1993. As these runs are <br />Trapper PR9 Preliminary Adequacy Prepared by: R. Reilley, GISP, M.S. Page 5 <br />Date: May 2018 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.