Laserfiche WebLink
a. The drainage shown on Map 12-A (sheet 1 of 3, received 12/20/05) shows a tum to the <br />west at approximately N 405600,E 1418400. This turn occurs in an azea that is <br />relatively flat. (Also refer to Appendix A map "TR96 Reclamation Bond, Regrade Cross- <br />Section, Derringer Pit without Ash Fill Section D 405500".) How will Trapper Mining <br />[nc. assure that water flow from a 10-yeaz event will continue in the drainage channel and <br />not break out of the channel? The contours shown on Map 12 are 50-foot intervals. A <br />map with shorter contour intervals, say 10-foot, for this azea in question may be <br />appropriate to assure the Division of drainage channel ability to contain the runoff at the <br />westwazd turn. <br />Z. Trapper Mining Inc. indicated that the revised mine plan would also revise the post-mining <br />topography to be more similar ro the pre-PR-OS contours. A revised M12 was not received with <br />this submittal. Please provide an updated past-mining topography map. <br />Map 12 (sheet 1 of 3) received December 5, 2005, shows proposed post-mining topography for <br />the D/E pit assuming adequate volume of ash is available For disposal in the D/E pit. Map 12, <br />sheet 1 of 3, received December 5, 2005 agrees with previously post-mining contours shown on <br />approved Map 12 (sheet 1 of 3) revised May 28, 2003 and approved during RN04. The new <br />Map 12 (sheet 1 of 3) is acceptable. <br />3. Trapper Mining Inc. provided updated pit dimensions and fill volumes for F pit, G-stike pit, G- <br />Dippit, G-test pit, Ash disposal pit, and East F (Z) pit. The Division has revised our <br />reclamation liability costs to reflect the revised pit dimensions and volumes. Reduction in <br />baclrf:ll and grading costs due to future mine plan change maybe handled within the scope of <br />this technical revision. <br />Pit dimensions were calculated from Trapper Mining Inc.'s Map 6 "Bond Worst Case Yeaz, Yeaz <br />2006" submitted September 2, 2005. F pit dimensions were reduced. The previously approved <br />G-strike pit mine plan is abandoned with a G-dip pit mine plan proposed instead. <br />The Division has revised the reclamation cost estimate to reflect revisions to the mine plan and <br />costs associated with backfill and grading of D/E pit if no ash was available. The Division also <br />revised some tasks to reflect use of similaz pieces of earthmoving equipment to agree with <br />equipment choices that Trapper Mining Inc. would choose, i.e. bulldozers versus scrapers for <br />moving spoil in D/E pit. Costs that were not affected by changes proposed in this TR were not <br />recalculated. Costs calculated in the June 2005 Mid-Term Review were used. Only tasks <br />affected by this proposed technical revision were updated. This reclamation cost estimate update <br />is applicable to changes proposed in TR96. Submittal of Trapper Mining Inc.'s 2005 Annual <br />Reclamation Report may require a review of this estimate. <br />The Division does not agree with Trapper's estimate of $17,892,567.00 for the remaining <br />reclamation liability. The Division's estimate resulted in a total reclamation cost estimate of <br />$20,192,872. Of this value, $16,409,397.00 is attributed to direct costs. Indirect costs account <br />C:/jhb/C81010/2005 TR/TR-96/Adequacyl.doc 2 <br />