Laserfiche WebLink
The EAB08 parcel resulted from a scarp forming across the parcel in 2010 causing the parcel to be <br /> removal from the SL11 bond release request at the time. The reclamation of the scarp included <br /> excavating and a reduction in the steepness of the scarp. The scarp was then graded to blend with the <br /> surrounding landscape, topsoiled and seeded. Parcel EAB23 was the site of a topsoil pile. Most of <br /> the topsoil was used for the reclamation of D Pit and some was reserved for spreading EASB23 parcel. <br /> The parcel was disked and seeded. <br /> Compliance with Approved Post Mining Topography <br /> The Division confirms that reclamation parcels have been backfilled and graded in accordance with <br /> the approved postmining topography and that drainage control has been accomplished. The <br /> constructed drainage was built to the permit standards and blends appropriately with the surrounding <br /> landscape as discussed above. <br /> The Division evaluated the reclamation parcels to determine that affected areas have been backfilled <br /> and graded in accordance with the approved post mining topography. To evaluate the SL25 bond <br /> release block for Phase I bond release, the Division compared the approved post mining topography <br /> (PMT) as depicted on Map M12 in the permit with the M1 and M2 maps provided with the application <br /> package, and the data collected by the Division during the Phase I field inspection as discussed above. <br /> Based on the Division's field measurements, it was found that the M1 and M2 maps accurately depict <br /> the post-mine topography and that topography complies with the approved post-mine topography <br /> shown on Map M12 in the PAP. <br /> As demonstrated by the map review, and the data collected and illustrated below,the difference in field <br /> collected elevation (orange contours) and Trapper Map 1 elevations (black contours), shows a shift <br /> between the two different projection systems; Trappers unique projection and DRMS's global UTM <br /> projection. No method of georeferencing mathematics can be applied to compensate for the differences <br /> in the two projection geometries. This does not mean that the reclaimed topography does not comply. <br /> The shift is consistent throughout the parcels and the site, corroborating TMI's approved post mining <br /> topography as per Map M12. The contour lines are spaced 10 feet apart for both Trapper and DRMS <br /> data indicating consistent topography compliant with the approved permitted approximate original <br /> contour (AOC) exhibiting the projection differences between the TMI map and field collected <br /> information. <br /> Permit Number C1981010 Prepared by: R.Reilley <br /> SL25 Page 11 of 21 <br />