Laserfiche WebLink
14. Please address the existence or not, of prime farmland with revised text or point DRMS <br /> to that determination in the permit. <br /> Trapper Response to Comment 14: Section 2.6.2.1 details cropland soils and conversely"prime farmland" <br /> designations for two soil mapping units at Trapper.Permit page 2-343 details why these soils would not be <br /> considered prime farmlands due to lack of irrigation. This determination would be applicable to the PR-11 <br /> expansion area as well.For the PR-I I expansion area,Trapper utilized the same internal soil survey units as <br /> our original soil survey.Mapping unit 6 occurs in this area and could potentially be considered prime farmland <br /> if irrigated. A separate independent evaluation of the same area mapped with the Moffat County NRCS soil <br /> survey also demonstrates a similar soil type,map unit 66,as farmland of statewide importance,but not prime <br /> farmland.No other soils mapped in the expansion area would be considered prime farmland. <br /> Trappers' response adequately addresses the above cited rule. <br /> Rule: 2.05.3 (1), (2a), (2b)Permit Area <br /> DRMS 28 February 2023 <br /> A Permit area boundary expansion was requested in the application. It appears that the I Pit <br /> West expansion comprises a 141.1 acre permit boundary increase into area that comprises the <br /> Williams Fork permit and includes two DWR monitoring wells. Also, C Pit expansion where <br /> mining has previously occurred, comprises area held jointly in the Williams Fork Mine <br /> permit. In total it appears that the overlap with WF permit comprises approximately 1,076 <br /> acres. A survey of the proposed expansion area was part of the revised pages submission as <br /> were maps showing the expansion area. Detailed narrative of mining and reclamation were <br /> submitted as per revised pages for permit Sections 2.3. 2.5, 2.6 2.7 and 3.1. <br /> As discussed above in Rule 3.02.2 (below), the PR11 application requests an increase of 137.10 <br /> acres, as well as an increases in affected and disturbed areas having ramification for the <br /> performance warranty. It appears from the application form that the increase in surface area and <br /> the total permit area acreage are in discrepancy. <br /> Please address the following: <br /> 15.Acreages for the phases on mining in C Pit and I Pit West were not included in the <br /> discussions. <br /> Trapper Response to Comment 15: Over the next five-year permit term, as demonstrated in the PR-II <br /> application,mining will take place in the C and I-Pit areas between 2023 to 2028. The areas to be stripped were <br /> included in the requested 295.0 new acres of disturbance. Table 3.1-3 details proposed yearly stripping acres. <br /> Table 1.4-2 also demonstrates the WCB annual stripping projections. They are detailed on the M10 map series <br /> by pit and area. <br /> Trappers' response adequately addresses DRMS's question. <br /> Affected area as defined in DRMS Rules (7), resulting from highwall mining/auger mining <br /> (DRMS definition (16)), in the various pits was not included in the submission. <br /> The 26 Oct 2022 question posed to Trapper Mine Inc. is repeated below. <br /> 16. The Division has received the PRII permitting action and reviewed the affected area <br /> acreage associated. As DRMS considers the area overlying the underground mining <br /> operations associated with the highwall/auger operation as affected area, it appears <br /> that the affected area must be increased for these areas over the entire site where <br /> highwall mining has occurred in the past, up to the present and through the PRII <br /> Permit term. This would include areas in the following pits, and possibly other <br /> 7 <br /> Trapper Mine PR I ADQ No 2 <br /> 2023 February <br />