2018-12-24_REVISION - C1981010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

from aerial photographs. DRMS understands that TMI performs detailed elevation measurements utilizing drone technology on an annual basis at Trapper mine. DRMS notes differences in stage height for Horse 1 and East Middle Flume ponds. 8. Please discuss these differences with a short explanation of how the new measurement was arrived at. 9. DRMS notes negative freeboard values for Middle Pyeatt #1 and #3 ponds. As the Middle Pyeatt system is projected to take runoff and possibly mine water from the development of N pit please discuss this situation. Trapper Response: Enclosed please find revised Tables 4.8-6 and 4.8-7. A thorough review of all the numbers in these tables demonstrated that a few calculation errors had been made over the years and were corrected. 24 December DRMS: The above issues have been adequately addressed with the exception of.- Not f:Not all stage values coincide between table 4.8-6 and 4.8-7. Please double check the stage values in each table as well as between tables and resubmit as revised pages. DRMS is in possession of pages 2 and 3 of table 4.8-6 but not pgl. Rule: 2.04.10 (1) - (5) Vegetation Information The cover letter submitted with the revised pages states that Trapper is proposing to modify the shrub density standard to include a 700 stems/acre alternative standard. 10. Please insert a discussion of this alternate standard on page 4-101 where success standards are outlined. Trapper Response: Revised page 4-101 is enclosed as requested. In addition, TMI held a meeting with Brett Smithers and Evan Jones of CPW 27 August 2018 that discussed the proposed shrub density standard alternative. It was agreed in that meeting that the shrub density standard should be 550 stems/acre for the no shrub clumps alternative. Thus, pending your final approval, that is what we will use for future Phase III bond release sampling. Previously submitted page 4-119 has been revised to reflect the revised shrub density standard and is enclosed. 24 December DRMS: Trapper's response is adequate. Rule: 2.05.3 (1), (2a) DRMS understands from revised page 3-15a that future development in the Ithaca Pit Mining Area (I pit), is under consideration. M4 depicts both an I pit and a J pit. There is no discussion of the J pit in the revised pages as submitted. 11. Please update the narrative to include discussion of the J pit and resubmit associated revised pages. Trapper Response: Text on enclosed page 3-15a has been revised to show "J" (Jennings) Pit on that page as well as the "I" (Ithaca) Pit. Other clarifications of the text were made as well to make the section read more clearly. 24 December DRMS: Trapper's response is adequate. Trapper PR9 2"`' Adequacy Prepared by: R. Reilley, LISP, M.S. Page 7 Date: December 2018