Laserfiche WebLink
Utility Waste Area. <br />24 December DRMS: Trapper's response is adequate. <br />23. Please, also provide the following specific cross section drawings for <br />Nighthawk pit: <br />a. At E1,426,000 <br />b. At N409,000, across the middle of pit <br />Trapper Response to Comment 23: The requested cross-sections are enclosed. <br />24 December DRMS: Trapper's response is adequate. <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 El, 441,000 please explain why the <br />post mining topography proposed is 200 feet lower than the topography of <br />the October 2016 survey and map (M3). <br />Trapper Response to Comment 24: The pre -strip operation at Trapper Mine is currently removing <br />approximately 150 feet or more of overburden to the H seam east of active L pit. That material is being <br />hauled around to the west side of the L pit to be used for reclamation backfill. In October 2016, this section <br />at E1441,000 was pre -mining topography. Near the end of our 5 year permit term in 2022, this same <br />section would be near the open cut to Q seam, which represents approximately a 350 feet elevation <br />difference from the pre -mining topography. <br />24 December DRMS: Trapper's response is adequate. <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 />Trapper Response to Comment 25: The requested cross-sections are enclosed. <br />24 December DRMS: Trapper's response is adequate. <br />As per Rule 2.05.3(6)(b), plans must describe the geotechnical investigation <br />associated with the disposal area. After reviewing the proposed changes as well as <br />the currently approved Trapper PAP, DRMS was unable to locate any geotechnical <br />investigation for the proposed excess spoil area at the Utility Waste Disposal area. <br />26. Please provide results of a geotechnical investigation of the proposed <br />disposal site along the utility waste disposal area. <br />Trapper Response to Comment 26: Trapper does not consider the material hauled from N pit to the <br />Utility Waste Disposal Area as "Excess Spoil." Therefore, we feel that no geotechnical investigation is <br />warranted. <br />24 December DRMS: Trapper's response is adequate with the exception of. <br />DRMS would find helpful any report or documentation as to the material properties <br />Trapper PR9 2"`' Adequacy Prepared by: R. Reilley, LISP, M.S. Page 11 <br />Date: December 2018 <br />