Laserfiche WebLink
Division's initial response: ... Please provide a final version of the Agapito Associates Inc. report. <br />Please understand that the Division cannot treat information pertaining to geotechnical stability as <br />confidential or propriety. <br />Division's response: This response is Complete <br />Division's initial comment No. 4: Reclamation costs associated with reclamation of the Horse fill and <br />the Buttress fill were not included in the application package. Please provide the reclamation cost <br />estimate for these two fills (1.05.4(2)(b)). <br />Trapper Mining Inc. 's initial response: The fills are constructed in such a manner that the material is, <br />for the most part, placed in its final resting place. Under a scenario where operations unexpectedly <br />cease, there is likely to be some minimal dozer work required to attain the final configuration. For the <br />purposes of accounting for this work is has been assumed that 60 hours of DI I dozer time will be <br />required for each of these fills. This additional cost has been added to the regrade costs. Costs for re- <br />topsoiling and vegetation of these areas area already included in the initial bond submittal. Enclosed <br />you will find revised regard Table 1.4-2, revised performance factor information (page 1-39) revised <br />Table 1.4-1, Summary of Costs for the Trapper Mine Bond Calculation and revised page 1-31. <br />Division's initial response: ... Please provide a plan per Rules 2.05.4(2)(c) and 4.14.1(2)(d) which <br />describes the process by which the boxcut spoil of initial cut spoil will be returned to K Pit in the event <br />that mining operations proposed for K pit cease before the volume of excavated K Pit overburden <br />meets the definition of "excess spoil" at Rule 1.04(43a). <br />Trapper Mining Inc. 's response: The reclamation liability has been recalculated. The worst case year <br />remains 2012 when the largest area of K pit has been excavated with minimal direct haul backfill. In <br />order to bring the configuration of this pit to an acceptable state in the unlikely event that operations <br />cease in 2012, material from the Horse Gulch Fill is hauled to backfill the open area and dozers are <br />utilized to better balance the material in and adjacent to the pit. Revised K pit cross sections for <br />inclusion in Appendix A have been enclosed for reference. In, addition Map M6, Bond Worst Case <br />Year, and Section 1.4, Determination of Bond, page 1-31 and Tables 1.4-1 through 1.4-7 have been <br />revised and are resubmitted. The reclamation liability now totals $28,494,973 compared to <br />$22,250,743 in the original submittal. <br />Division's response: This response is Complete. <br />Division's initial comment No. S: The Horse fill adds additional disturbed area to Horse and Deal <br />drainages. Pleas provide updates to the sediment modeling (SEDCAD) for these two drainages to <br />assure the Division that the ponds are properly sized for the increased disturbance, or provide for <br />revision to the Horse and Deal ponds should the modeling indicate (Rule 4.05.6). <br />Trapper Mining Inc.'s initial response: Trapper has evaluated the effect of the drainage and sediment <br />control systems of the added disturbance in Deal Gulch and Horse Gulch. The structure in Horse <br />Gulch is currently not sized to meet the effluent and freeboard requirements. An enlargement of Horse <br />pond is proposed. The attached SEDCAD runs for the 10 year, 24 hour event and the 25 year, 24 hour <br />event show the modeled results of the new configuration. The enlargement involves excavating