Laserfiche WebLink
Page 8of10 <br />Changes have been made in the proposed text of this section to make ponds 4 & 8 <br />permanent impoundments. The Division does not dismiss these ideas out of hand, but <br />does not feel that the information submitted is sufficient to support such a change. In <br />addition to the comments about pond 4 made above (131), it is worth making two <br />points at this stage, in case NECC wishes to pursue the idea further: firstly, landowner <br />approval must be granted formally, on a signed letter which may be added to the permit <br />as an exhibit; secondly, the proposed permanent impoundments must be permitted by <br />the Division of Water Resources before they can be approved by the Division of <br />Reclamation, Mining and Safety. <br />Rule 2.10 - Maps and Plans <br />15. Permit boundary Maps 1 and 2 <br />The permit boundary has been changed on both Maps 1 and 2. The boundary is the same on both <br />maps. At time of writing technical problems with both the map scanner and the planimeter in our <br />office has prevented the Division from verifying the acreage of the permit area as drawn. <br />16. Map 2 unidentified parcel <br />The response is sufficient <br />17. Disturbance area boundary, Map 15 <br />Map 15 has been re -drawn and is much clearer and easier to interpret. The disturbance boundary is <br />clearly shown, as are the post- mining land uses and the areas where refuse has been deposited. The <br />following issues are noted: <br />a. At the east end of the site an area has been indicated as "Industrial land use ". This does <br />not appear on the currently approved version of Map 15. Please explain. <br />b. In several locations (for example, on the south side of the river opposite DWDA2, and <br />on the north side of the RDA) the "Disturbed Area (refuse)" area exceeds the green <br />"Surface Disturbance" boundary — presumably this is a cartographic error that can be <br />rectified, rather than a case of refuse being deposited outside of the approved disturbed <br />area. <br />18. Map 10 plant communities <br />The response is sufficient, with the caveat that it will need to be updated before any further <br />disturbance is approved. <br />19. Drill hole map <br />Map 23 was submitted which appears to have the necessary information. The colors, fonts and <br />placement of labels make the map quite difficult to read. <br />20. Consolidated drill hole table <br />The Division accepts that the creation of a table consolidating all boreholes, slurry wells, <br />groundwater monitoring wells and other drill holes may be deferred for now, however NECC <br />should plan to collate the information in time for the next permit renewal. <br />21. Maps vs. on- the - ground discrepancies <br />The response is sufficient <br />22. Mapped location of structures at facilities area <br />a. A discrepancy remains between the revised versions of Map 13 and Map 11 Sheet 3 <br />regarding the location of the Bates Portal Conveyor <br />