2011-09-22_REVISION - M1977300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COTTER CORPORATION (N.S.L.) RESPONSE TO DRMS LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 Additional information requested by DRMS: 1) Request: A detailed justification as to why another extension is needed. Response: On July 22, 2011 Cotter representatives John Hamrick and Randy Whicker met with David Bird and Tony Waldron of DRMS to discuss a proposal to divide construction of the pipeline diversion project into two phases in order to allow construction of the upper cutoff wall to begin in 2011, and to also allow a temporary, 8 cfs HDPE pipeline to be constructed at the same time in order to begin isolating the creek from the alluvial fill as soon as possible (Phase 1). The rationale for the proposal is that permitting evaluations and approvals from multiple agencies for the 100 cfs steel pipeline cannot be realistically completed such that construction of the steel pipeline and lower cutoff wall (Phase 2) could begin prior to the fall of 2012. Cotter informed DRMS that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had indicated a favorable view of this proposal and Mr. Bird and Mr. Waldron subsequently expressed a favorable view as well. Also at the July 22, 2011 meeting, Mr. Bird and Mr. Waldron indicated to Cotter that DRMS could conditionally approve a phased approach for TR -18, with the stipulations that: a) Disturbances associated with Phase 1 pipeline construction and infrastructure will occur only within areas of the site that are currently permitted under the mine reclamation permit. While responses to all Adequacy Review comments had been developed by the August 6, 2011 deadline, a number of technical responses related to final engineering designs were incomplete (only conceptual in nature) at that time because the necessary geotechnical 1 9/16/11 b) Appropriate reclamation bonding is in place prior to any construction. c) An amendment to the mine reclamation permit that extends the permitted area to accommodate all disturbances associated with Phase 2 pipeline construction and infrastructure be submitted and approved prior to implementation of Phase 2 of the creek diversion project. Cotter is aggressively proceeding with development of permit submittals to DRMS and other agencies, geotechnical studies, and engineering designs in accordance with the above stipulations for conditional DRMS approval of TR -18. One of the permitting submittals includes responses to the Revised Adequacy Review of TR -18 issued by DRMS on July 6, 2011 (Adequacy Review). Although the Adequacy Review was issued prior to the July 22 meeting between Cotter and DRMS, and prior to the subsequent plan to include a phased approach for pipeline implementation, Cotter proceeded to develop responses to Adequacy Review comments in accordance with the indicated August 6, 2011 deadline for submittal.