Laserfiche WebLink
sampling is premature at this time. <br />24 December DRMS: Trapper's response is adequate. <br />6C. Please describe N Pit dewatering regime: <br />a. State where this water will be routed. <br />b. Also, please describe the routing measures to be employed, illustrating <br />routing locations and mechanisms with ditch designs, pumping regime and <br />specifications where appropriate. <br />Trapper Response: N Pit dewatering may occur after the initial boxcut is opened. Currently water may <br />be discharged through outfall 011, East Pyeatt Gulch, and when the draft NPDES permit renewal is <br />approved Trapper may discharge through outfall 009, Middle Pyeatt Gulch, as proposed to CDPHE. <br />Water will most likely be routed from the pit or dewatering wells via HDPE pipelines laid on the ground <br />surface. If any surface diversions are constructed they will be temporary in nature and designed and built <br />using the temporary ditch designs in section 4.8.1.2 of the permit. If larger structures are required they will <br />be evaluated at a later date and a revision submitted accordingly. Pit dewatering operations are typically <br />temporary in nature and are currently being used in a similar fashion in the L Pit area. <br />Further discussion and design inclusion to the permit is unwarranted at this time. <br />24 December DRMS: Trapper's response is adequate. <br />DRMS notes that Grouse and Sage drainages have no current monitoring <br />requirements. <br />7. Please describe to what extent if any, Grouse and Sage systems will receive <br />water from disturbances associated with haul road construction or other pre <br />mining activity associated with N pit development. <br />Trapper Response: Minimal runoff associated with the haulroad stripping and construction area will <br />flow to the Grouse sediment ponds. Sage ponds may not be affected at all and neither system will receive <br />mine water. Their classification as sediment control structures is adequate for any disturbance areas <br />reporting to them. <br />24 December DRMS: Trapper's response is adequate. <br />DRMS reviewed the as build designs for the following ponds: Please see associated <br />comments and questions under Rule 2.05.3 (4) below. <br />Johnson #6 Johnson #7 <br />Johnson #10 Middle Pyeatt #1 <br />No Name #2 No Name #4 (rec) <br />Johnson #8 <br />Middle Pyeatt #2 <br />No Name #5 (rec) <br />Johnson #9 <br />Middle Pyeatt #3 <br />Ute Pond (rec) <br />Received as builts for all above ponds and associated revised pages, 4-184, 4-24; <br />tables: 4.8-7, 4.8.8b, 4.8-11; and maps. DRMS possesses the following questions <br />regarding Table 4.8-7 pages 2 and 3: <br />DRMS noted that the diameter measurements were omitted for East Pyeatt #1 and <br />East Pyeatt #3 ponds. Having clarified this change on the phone with Mr. Roberts <br />stating that the drop outlets/decant systems had been removed from these ponds; <br />DRMS finds that acceptable. <br />TMI states that elevations are based on current topographic information obtained <br />Trapper PR9 2"' Adequacy Prepared by: R. Reilley, LISP, M.S. Page 6 <br />Date: December 2018 <br />