My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-12-24_REVISION - C1981010
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981010
>
2018-12-24_REVISION - C1981010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/2/2019 12:55:12 PM
Creation date
1/2/2019 12:46:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981010
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
12/24/2018
Doc Name
Adequacy Review #2
From
DRMS
To
Trapper Mining Inc
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.
/
14
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
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 once <br />completed would reduce the inspection interval for the fill. <br />12. Please discuss the reclamation to be carried out specifically addressing the <br />topsoil pile; will the soil be utilized somewhere or remain in place? <br />Trapper Response: The topsoil pile in question will be used up during the 2018 and 2019 reclamation <br />field seasons. After the pile is removed, reclamation seeding will take place. Following seeding, the <br />reclaimed area will be included in a forthcoming Phase I bond release application. <br />24 December DRMS: Trapper's response is adequate. <br />13. As changes to fill inspection intervals require DRMS approval, please <br />update the text on page 3-40b to incorporate: ...go to once a year 'once <br />approved by the Division" and will take place... <br />Trapper Response: Text on page 3-40b was revised as requested and the page is enclosed. <br />24 December DRMS: Trapper's response is adequate. <br />Rule: 2.05.3 (4) <br />This is a review of the design plans submitted for sediment ponds. The above rule is <br />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 />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 <br />meet the general requirements of Rule 2.10.1, with specific emphasis on <br />legibility, and completeness of information. <br />Trapper Response: The requested and enclosed as -built drawings referenced above for all <br />12 ponds have been modified and edited for better clarity of information with this adequacy response. <br />24 December DRMS: Trapper's response is adequate. <br />Trapper PR9 2"`' Adequacy Prepared by: R. Reilley, LISP, M.S. Page 8 <br />Date: December 2018 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.