Laserfiche WebLink
DRMS notes the receipt on 3 February 2023, of SHPO's response to Trappers January 2023 <br /> letter. SHPO's letter requests addition archeologic inventory mapping in I and L Pits prior to <br /> construction. <br /> This adequacy item remains outstanding until further communication with SHPO. <br /> Rule 4.05.15 Water Rim <br /> DRMS 28 February 2023 <br /> Augmentation table (Table 4.8-1 page 4-172a), shows the water depletion calculation. The <br /> Water Rights Map M31 does not appear to show the location of the two monitoring wells <br /> referenced in previous adequacy questions. <br /> Trapper Response to Comment: Regarding both Table 4.8-1 and Map M31,monitoring wells do not affect <br /> water balances as they do not produce water.None of Trapper's monitoring wells are included as part of the <br /> Table 4.8-1 water depletion calculations; likewise,monitoring wells do not show up on Map M31 since they do <br /> not affect water production or water rights. <br /> Trappers' response adequately addresses the above cited rule. <br /> Rule 2.10 Maps and Plans <br /> DRMS 28 February 2023 <br /> The above rule is adequately addressed with the exception of: <br /> 26. Surface ownership map MI and page 1-15 do not coincide exactly, BLM is on the <br /> surface ownership list but on the map is just shown as USA. <br /> Trapper Response to Comment 26: Moffat County land ownership records list these lands as being owned by <br /> the"United States of America." The Bureau of Land Management is the administering agency of these lands <br /> and the designated contact for communication purposes on page 1-15. <br /> Trappers' response adequately addresses the above cited rule. <br /> 27. Pit limits for 1 Pit West are not shown on sheet I of the Worst Case Map M6,please <br /> update the map to show the pit limits. <br /> Trapper Response to Comment 27: I West-Pit is not included on M6, as the pit will not be disturbed or active <br /> during the WCB scenario time period in 2023. Therefore, calculation for its surface disturbance and regrade are <br /> not included or shown under the WCB scenario. <br /> 28. Is the legend correct on Map M51, Drainage Control and Sediment Plan when it calls out <br /> two years plus growth,please explain as this appears to be significantly more mature <br /> reclamation and appears to be a vague classification. <br /> Trapper Response to Comment 28: Section XII of Appendix Q describes how curve numbers for SEDCAD <br /> modeling were determined. The 2+years growth category is correct on Map M51. <br /> Trappers' response adequately addresses the above cited rule. <br /> 29. Please clarify the color coding on Figure 2.7-15g page 2-414p), as at West Buzzard#3 <br /> red circles are not defined, and the pond appears to be historic (orange), and is labeled <br /> proposed"which would be purple according to the legend. <br /> Trapper Response to Comment 29: The color coding appears to be slightly off. The figure is representing that <br /> NPDES 006 and West Buzzard#3 pond were historic features. West Buzzard#3 pond was left as a permanent <br /> impoundment during the bond release process many years prior. West Buzzard#1 and#2 were reclaimed. The pond <br /> is listed as proposed,as Trapper intends to modify the impoundment for more capacity.Modelling and proposed <br /> designs are included in PR-I I as App. Q materials for this pond modification. <br /> 11 <br /> Trapper Mine PR I ADQ No 2 <br /> 2023 February <br />