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
outdated given current conditions and future anticipated disturbance, rerunning <br />these models for the proposed PR9 disturbance is appears necessary. <br />14. Please, update and resubmit the Middle Pyeatt System as built drawings to meet the <br />general requirements of Rule 2.10.1, with specific emphasis on legibility, and <br />completeness of information. <br />15. Please recalculate the sedcad runs to reflect conditions addressing the anticipated <br />effects of disturbance for: <br />16. Middle Pyeatt <br />17. East Pyeatt systems <br />18. Please discuss to what extend extent if any, the No Name Pond system may be <br />affected by the changes in topography proposed at the D Pit? <br />19. Will there be any water routing structures to construct or modify? <br />When comparing the pre (M3, PR7) and post mining (M12, PR9) topography for the <br />drainage cross sections proposed in Map M15 DRMS found the contour interval in <br />the M3 series is incorrectly called out at 10', it appears to be 20' in reality making <br />the M# series maps incorrect. <br />20. Please resubmit corrected M3 series maps drawn at a contour interval of 10 feet so <br />that DRMS can accurately compare pre and post mining topography in the drainage <br />ways. <br />Rule: 2.05.3 (5) <br />The above rule is adequately addressed. <br />Rule: 2.05.3(6) <br />The above rule addresses the requirements for spoil and associated disposal <br />structures. <br />A description of the proposed N Pit was included in Section 3.1.4.1 as well as Map <br />M4. TMI states that overburden as well as excess spoil for the N Pit will be regraded <br />into the reclamation west of the pit and placed as fill in the L Pit. Associated <br />updated post -mining topography descriptions and maps were included in the <br />submission. However, as per the discussion with Trapper and the Division (11 May <br />2018), TMI explained that additional excess spoil from the proposed N Pit will be <br />placed within the Utility Waste Disposal Area (ash pit). As per Rule 2.05.3(6)(b), <br />descriptions, including appropriate maps, prepared according to the standard of <br />2.10, and cross section drawings, of the proposed disposal site and design of the <br />spoil disposal structures according to 4.09 are required. <br />A map showing location of the disposal area was included with Map M47A in the <br />submittal however, no cross section drawing of the disposal area are provided. A <br />post mining topo series was provided, the M12 series showed cross sections for <br />Trapper PR9 Preliminary Adequacy Prepared by: R. Reilley, GISP, M.S. Page 6 <br />Date: May 2018 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.